The Proletarianist Manifesto

[VukBZ2005]

Today, the Proletarianist Manifesto has been released. You Can currently find it Here (http://www.che-lives.net/users/firefox/The%20proman.html).
It will soon be available for download on .pdf. Read it, Critize it, and evaluate it.
This is my attempt on cementing Proletarianism on a basis of ideas and views.

[YKTMX]

Wouldn't you rather put this this in Theory so people can discuss it.

[T_SP]

my first critique would be: don't use the word Proletarianism, it's such a dated, odd word that only really means something to the likes of us!

[MiniOswald]

Capitalism is protected by the state and depends on the image-based society on maintaining it's pshycological control of the working class.

its spelt psychological.


The image that has been avertised by the image-based society causes men to think of women in that kind of image.

Advertised.

[chebol]

I agree with T_SP.

Also, you might want to take (another) look at this http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...festo/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)

[Saint-Just]

I am not sure you should used terms such as 'pissed off'. I don't think it accurately or scientifically describes the process by which workers acquire a consciousness of exploitation.

I also think you might need to expand on some things.

Learning would actually be learning for once
Why is learning not learning in present society?

What does 'non-authoritarian' mean?


Couples could form relationships change them and even
dissolve them on their own accord

Does this not happen at the moment? And should you not question why it is that people start or dissolve relationships in the first instance? And what about the implications of this for love?


If there is a need to make things offical there may be anti-authoritarian unions of love.

What is the purpose of a union of love?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Well if you are a normal, everyday guy -
you usually look at girls. But what do look at them for? For who and what they really are? Or just because
of their looks? It would be most likely number two. The image that has been avertised by the image-based
society causes men to think of women in that kind of image.

Not per se, hetero-sexual men have always looked at women for their looks. It's not capitalism, however capitalism uses this to their benefit in this patriarchial world.

People looking at each other for their looks will not dissapear, not even in Communism.

On number 7.


Other workers within their workplace join the WAG. The WAG soon becomes large enough
to begin it's next course of action - the workers of the WAG take over all of the factories, offices, and workplaces
within the area it is located in. Then students who are revolutionary and are incouraged by the direct action of the
WAG form Student Action Groups.

You assume too much. What tells you that other people will join in? What makes you think that those persons are political consiouss?

You're probaly looking at France '68. That failed, because people were not political consiouss.

You assume that people will form up in non-hierachial structures and will go in the direction of communism.

What tells you that "a strong man" doesn't take power?


these workers syndicates would cooperate with other worker's syndicates in other communes - because it would be in
their interest.

Why do you assume that some workers collectives will not sell their products?


Marraige would not exist

Misspelling and why would you abolish marriage? If someone wants to, let them.

[Edelweiss]

The symbol you choosed for the cover (a mixture of hammer and sickle and swastika) is ridiculous and disgusting! where have you got that from? From a National Bolshevik site, or what?

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 06:25 PM
The symbol you choosed for the cover (a mixture of hammer and sickle and swastika) is ridiculous and disgusting! where have you got that from? From a National Bolshevik site, or what?
It is not a swatstika. :o and it's not a hammer and sickle ethier.

It's a Hammer and Wrench in 3D. I do not know where you got that idea from...

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 12:31 PM
my first critique would be: don't use the word Proletarianism, it's such a dated, odd word that only really means something to the likes of us!
There is a reason we are using the word Proletarianism. First we feel that
Communism a word that has been abused by people who were/are not
really communist. Therefore we perfer the use of the word Proletarianism
- let it sound odd and unsual - since people keep associating Communism
with Fascism - we have come to a realization that the word can not be
rehabilitated so we will use the word Proletarianism - as it better
represents our ideas. Proletarianism is combination of three theories.
You understand what i mean very, very soon - this manifesto is attempting
on setting Proletarianism on a solid base.

And i apologize for the misspellings - i did not catch it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Nobody is gonna start using this proletarism crap. We'll continue using communism, because after all, it's the same struggle as it was 150 years ago.

Good effort on your manifesto, but I prefer Marx's and Engels's.
Lay off the stuff about relationships and love. Way too pretentious to say that we're reconstruct private relations.

Also explain what you mean non-authoritarian.
I would say that socialism is anti-authoritarian, but many would disagree. Elaborate…

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by Communist FireFox+Dec 30 2004, 08:46 PM--> (Communist FireFox @ Dec 30 2004, 08:46 PM)
[email protected] 30 2004, 06:25 PM
The symbol you choosed for the cover (a mixture of hammer and sickle and swastika) is ridiculous and disgusting! where have you got that from? From a National Bolshevik site, or what?
It is not a swatstika. :o and it's not a hammer and sickle ethier.

It's a Hammer and Wrench in 3D. I do not know where you got that idea from... [/b]
Yeah, hammer and wrench, okay...Still, although it wasn't your intention that symbol looks like some merger of communist and Nazist symbolic. I guess I'm not the only one who had that association...

[Limbiko]

Comrades -

I am very happy that this forum has been established - and Comrade Firefox, I did enjoy your thoughts very much - keep up the formulation.

I agree with Comrade Zepplin on the relationship issues. Sadly, we in the west (especially here in the states) have become programmed from birth on expected role-play as working adult - i.e. breeding with like-minded, able-bodied partners to create future working class offspring for the obese ruling class.

I look forward to further posts.

:ph34r: Limbiko


"Freedom can only be found down the barrel of a shotgun......."
Mao-Tse-Tung

[Tupac-Amaru]

Nice try, but your "manifesto" seems a bit to simplistic, naïve and - sorry to say- pointless.

I find its kool that you try to come up with your own political theory, but maybe you should study, economics, political science, phylosiphy etc. Before atempting to write your own manifesto.

And by the way, a manifesto is a public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions of a political group or party. Does the "Proletarianist" party even exist? Or was this whole thing simply a massive waste of time? :( :(

[Saint-Just]

A damning yet accurate description Tupac-Amaru.


Sadly, we in the west (especially here in the states) have become programmed from birth on expected role-play as working adult - i.e. breeding with like-minded, able-bodied partners

Do you suggest we bread with partially able people who we find highly disagreeable? I find nothing wrong with that but I am not sure it is an ideal that should be forced upon others.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RedZepplin+--> (RedZepplin)Nobody is gonna start using this proletarism crap.[/b]

Perhaps not...the idea is still "floating around".

But I don't see the masses lining up at the Lenin Museum either. :D


Tupac-Amaru
...but maybe you should study economics, political science, philosophy etc. before attempting to write your own manifesto.

Yes, I'm afraid that's good advice.

One problem with the "manifesto" format is that the author tries to "say everything"...with the result that much is overlooked or goes unexplained.

A well-written book is better.

Also, I agree with Malte about the "symbol" -- even though I know that you have no fascist/third positionist sympathies, I had to look very closely at it to see what it was...it looked "swastika-like".

:redstar2000:

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

[STI]

Or a website containing thousands of internet posts? :P

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 30 2004, 07:42 PM
intentions of a political group or party. Does the "Proletarianist" party even exist? Or was this whole thing simply a massive waste of time? :( :(
There is a Proletarianist Internationale - But it's very small so to speak - and i
assure you - this was not a waste of time. Also - I would like to say as a e-book
- it is subject to be expanded on.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 07:19 PM
Also explain what you mean non-authoritarian.
I would say that socialism is anti-authoritarian, but many would disagree. Elaborate…
Non-authoritarian - to me - means anti-hiearchial - that is another way of saying it.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 30 2004, 07:42 PM
Nice try, but your "manifesto" seems a bit to simplistic, naïve and - sorry to say- pointless.

First - It was Meant to be simplistic. I tried to make it easier to understand - i did not want to go into a very long explaination of what i am trying to say. I wanted to get to the point because there are some
who have a rough time of understanding the explainations i give. Second - if it sounded naive - it was because i wanted to keep it short.

[VukBZ2005]

You assume too much. What tells you that other people will join in? What makes you think that those persons are political consiouss?

You're probaly looking at France '68. That failed, because people were not political consiouss.

You assume that people will form up in non-hierachial structures and will go in the direction of communism.

What tells you that "a strong man" doesn't take power?

Yes - i am assuming - remember - this is just a idea of how things will go down.
I can not be sure of what would happen because this kind of thing has not been
tested yet.




Why do you assume that some workers collectives will not sell their products?


Because in Proletarianist Society - there would be no need for money to exist.
Things would be Produced, Provided and Distributed on the basis of what use
the product would be for the person using it and what need would be there to
use the product that is being produced. in other words - on the basis of use
and need - not money , profit and monetary value.

[Essential Insignificance]

Firstly I would like to articulate that the overall "composition" is satisfactory in format and configuration -- however, with that said, it is, quite amateurish and slipshod.

But from what I understand you're quite young... and for someone of your age to produce such a work is are very laudable act! :)


Today humanity exists in two main classes; the Working class and the Rich Upper class.

The simple picture "painted" in the Manifesto (Marx's), is that capitalist society -- more and more, over time, approximates to a two-class system... in his more tangible analysis, it is replaced with a more complex "picture" of the class-structure, by recognizing and labeling a variety of class's or, at least segments of pre-existing identified of class's.

Namely, which Marx took great lengths to understand and it's "role" in capitalist society, is the petite-bourgeoisie -- obviously being a variant of the "higher bourgeoisie" -- properly entitled the "lower-bourgeoisie"; and the "lower" variant of the proletarian class, is the "lumpenproletariat" (rag-proletariat), regarded as living on the margins of society, particularly criminals, homeless people, street-prostitutes and the long-term unemployed.

You have failed to understand and identify these class's and the part, or there lack of they potentially play in the class-struggle.

You should have also added what "gives rise" to the unequal economic conditions, which generate differential life and class forms.

I'll just say quickly: that the differential relations to the means of production in regards to the control and ownership, and to which, the product of the use of those means, by virtue of which one group/ individual is able to extract surplus from another group/individual. More generally, by the ownership and control of the means of production -- the means of material production -- one class is able to "wheedle out" surplus from another.

Now like I have already touched upon, Marx thought that society would degenerate in to just two contenting class -- brought about, thought the natural "laws of motion" within the capitalist mode of production.

And this, necessarily, brings us to Marx's work on the accumulation of capital, and capitalism inherent laws of destruction.


The rich upper class is the class that exploits the working class so that the wealth the working class produces goes to them - the upper-class bosses - not the workers who labor everyday so that they could bring food to the table of their families.

You should have explained -- if only touched on -- how the capitalist class is able to acquire the surplus-value created by the workers surplus-labor, and thus the 'wealth" that "goes to them" -- which is in itself false --as it's one the key features of capitalism, that separates it from the other class society's.

In that, the capitalist is not able to hold own to his wealth, because the "inherent laws", oblige him to keep on revolutionizing machinery and technology in order to sustain and maximize future profit.

More basically, the difference between the capitalist and pre-capitalist mode of production, is that under capitalism, capital not only appropriates surplus-value, it produces-surplus-value!

It's fundamental to Marx's Labor theory of labor.

This now, brings me to how the capitalist is able to "profit" from the labor of the working force.

There exist's one commodity on the market, which "faces" all the "up and downs" that other commodity's do -- to wit, the labor-power of workers, whose use-value for the capitalist is it's ability to produce new value -- "above an over" -- it's exchange-value.

You should have gone on to examine the "basics" behind what Marx meant by Constant and Variable capital -- and it's part in how the capitalist is able to exploit, and gain profit... and also, it's contradiction!

In slavery, the relations are very simple -- master and slave -- if you fail to work you are unfed, whipped or throw to the wild beasts!

Under feudalism the worker is tied to property he works upon, his works four days for the owner of the property and for the three day remaining in the week he works for himself -- to produce the obligatory products for him to survive.

When, however, we examine the capitalist mode of production, everything seems more ambiguous and intricate. For there is no "overseer" with a whip held in hand, no brutal force, or armed man, appears to force the worker to give up everything he has produced.

On the appearance, the worker looks like he "sells" his labor in "exchange" for a "wage" -- preferably the highest one he can obtain.

The capitalist goes on to affix his recently acquired labor --with machines, raw materials and the labor of other man, internal or external in relation to the factory system, to produce goods.

As the capitalist owns the pre-existing capital (i.e. the machinery, raw materials and wages) it is "accepted" that he should go on to also to own the finished products, resulting from the amalgamation of dynamics.

You should have dealt with how the worker is mystified it to believing he is receiving a "hard days wage for a hard days work".

This would have tied in with you "physiological" bit on capitalism.


The working class, on the other hand is the class that is forced to labor daily or face starvation and the deprivation of the most valuable of resources - the resources they need to survive.

In Marx's time, the above was unfortunately true!

In modern day conditions, brought about by the labor-movement there are "wealth-warfare" systems set up to support the necessary "reserve-army" of workers.

But this only applies to those highly-developed capitalist nations; with that said, the funds that those "out of work" are supplied with are very little... just enough a live, a bohemian life on!

So the prospect of "starvation" is really only an issue for those in backward, semi-capitalist nations -- where capitalism is in its "formative years".


The image-based society is used by capitalism to make the working masses think in the process of moving images instead of thinking consistently. thanks to the image-based society - everyone is also viewed in images - instead of viewing them for who and what they really are and everyone immediately goes for something (a item of immense interest) because of it's image. The image-based society can also be called the Spectacle. "how about a example?" okay. Well if you are a normal, everyday guy - you usually look at girls. But what do look at them for? For who and what they really are? Or just becauseof their looks? It would be most likely number two. The image that has been avertised by the image-basedsociety causes men to think of women in that kind of image.
This paragraph is incredibly ambiguous, unfounded and dumpy.

What is meant by "imagine-based society" precisely? What does it imply? What is it's significance? Is that the only way the "masses think"? What gives rise and regulates this process?

[Tupac-Amaru]

OK, Communist FireFox :) ,

You've heard people's opinons...wot have you decided? Are you gonna edit some bits? Remove some bits? Totaly give up? Work hardcore at it and get back to us later?

What you gonna do man? :D

[VukBZ2005]

I'm re-doing it from top to bottom - i am not going to give up in something
i dearly believe in. I Want to go into more detail so there can not possibly
be any confusion and - i am using all the critiques to formulate new ideas.
This time - it will also be avialable on .pdf file under the People's Revolutionary
Publishing License (PRL). I'm also building up the Proletarianist Internationale.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Great man, glad to hear it!

I wish you the best of luck! Im sure it'll be better than the last one. ;)

Avoid vague and colloquial phrases such as "Learning would actually be learning for once", and explain yourself: Thesis and Anti-Thesis; DIALECTICS my friend.

Go forth! and write! Think, my friend, consider, reflect...maybe some day you will be the next Karl Marx. :D

[Essential Insignificance]

I apologize profusely for the above "exposition"... by myself.

It was very dry... sorry.

I didn't actually say anything about the title of the "proposal": The Proletarianist Manifesto.

I quite like the idea. But, I'd imagine very few workers would be aware of the term "proletarian"... and what it means.

Whereas... they can automatically "identity"... with terms such as "socialism", "communism", "communalism", "collectivism", etc, in however way they do... most properly with repugnance.

But I think the "obstruction" of unawareness can be easily overcome.

Like redstar2000 suggested... it would properly be better to write in a book form, although it would most likely be a lot harder, complicated and time-consuming... but it could be a much better "template" to say what you want to say -- instead of "watering-down" what you really want to say.

How's you amendment going?

[VukBZ2005]

1
Fine - Currently i am working on the main ideas of Proletarianism,
like worker syndicates, community assemblies, etc. Plus - i do not
have the time to write a book currently - that is why i am writing this
in Manifesto form - it would be easier for the normal worker to digest
and understand on a whole. I really hope that i can begin to properly
make the Proletarianist Internationale a viable organization very soon.
second, I want the word to be as awkward and unsual as it can be.
This is because people in the advanced capitalist countries and
people who are Leninists have distorted the word Communism. this
has convinced me that we need to move away from that word - it
has been taken advantaged of by people who do not want the
workers to realize that they can liberate themselves. In time - i am
sure that people would identify with the word Proletarianism rather
than the word communism.

2
Your Critique really helped me out a lot - Because your questions
actually form the basis of one of my paragraphs on the Imaged-
Based Culture. Plus - it made me elaborate even more on it. :marx:

[Essential Insignificance]

Okay.

I'm really clad my "critique" helped you.... and possibility furthered your "understanding".

I'm looking forward to the next "addition".

[Paradox]

So then is what I just read the "new edition" of this manifesto? I didn't see any "swastika-like" symbols, and I didn't find anything about a "union of love" that other members referred to, so I'm assuming it is. Anyways, I noticed that you use the term "worker's revolution." Shouldn't it be "workers' revolution, as "worker's" would imply there is only one solitary worker. There were a couple of other grammatical errors that you should take care of also. Other than that, in the section on internationalism you say "If a workers' revolution were to occur in any part of the world- the workers of every country must rise up to support and be in solidarity of and with that workers' revolution." If a revolution took place in one single country, wouldn't it lead to Socialism regardless of whether the world supported it? And according to your definition of Socialism, that would be a bad thing because Socialism is "State Beaucratic Monopoly Capitalism." It couldn't lead to Communism because Communism must be international, and it's stateless. Also, it's not like the workers of every nation can just start a revolution at a moment's notice in order to be in support of and in solidarity with one particular uprising. Overall though, it's an interesting read, though I still was a bit confused reading the latter half of the section on "Image-Based Culture."

[VukBZ2005]

So then is what I just read the "new edition" of this manifesto? I didn't see any
"swastika-like" symbols, and I didn't find anything about a "union of love" that other
members referred to, so I'm assuming it is.

1
That is because i took out those parts. And yes - you were reading
the Second Edition of the Proletarianist Manifesto - which is not complete
yet. I'm still working on it for the most part. The symbol of Proletarianism
used be a Hammer and Wrench. Now, it's a hammer. The hammer is meant
to represent the workers smashing capitalism, the state, social hierarchy,
eliminating classes, and smashing reactionaries (racists, sexists,
homophobes, etc.)


in the section on internationalism you say "If a workers' revolution were to
occur in any part of the world- the workers of every country must rise up to support and be
in solidarity of and with that workers' revolution." If a revolution took place in one single
country, wouldn't it lead to Socialism regardless of whether the world supported it?

2
No. Precisely if a real worker's revolution were to occur in any part of
the world, it would not lead towards "socialism" because everything would
be run by the workers themselves and the proletarianist society would be
governed by the workers themselves through worker community assemblies.
also it would definately depend this factor; (1)if the country in question has a
high or suitable amount of industries and industrialization. Some "third world"
nations are considered "third world" because although they have a high standard
of living, and have suitable industry, the living standards are not considered to be
up to the level of advanced capitalist nations. These nations, are basically are not
allowed to raised their living standards to that of the advanced capitalist nations
because the advanced capitalist nations attract technicians, engineers, and such
from the "third world" nations - and as a result, the "third world" nations don't have
the people needed to raise their living standards. Other factors come into play,
such as oil, and other natural resources. If there were a workers revolution in
these type of "third world" nations, then it must have the upmost support of every
worker that is able to support them, especially in the advanced industrialized
countries like France and the United States. This kind of thing happened during
the 1917 Russian Revolution, when the workers of several european nations like
england staged mass protests that scared the living hell out of the rich upper
classes of those countries. It even caused revolts in several of those countries
i believe. The same thing goes if a real workers revolution occurs in a Advanced
Capitalist Country - that is where i expect to see a working class revolution first.




And according to your definition of Socialism, that would be a bad thing because Socialism is
"State Beaucratic Monopoly Capitalism." It couldn't lead to Communism because Communism
must be international, and it's stateless.

3
What i am saying - is that "socialism" is not necessary. I am saying
that we should go straight towards Proletarianism.

[captain donald]

ill read the next one too although you did fall a little short and it did not seem all that new, but the sign did not look like a swastika to me :D

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by captain [email protected] 27 2005, 11:53 PM
ill read the next one too although you did fall a little short and it did not seem all that new, but the sign did not look like a swastika to me :D
As i have said before it is not completed as yet - so there is no definate way to
say for sure. Be patient, as i am also working on a lot of other things.