"Dictatorship" and Democracy

[Lamanov]

It might sound naive, but I have this idea that the term "dictatureship of the proletariat" should be changed with a term which better explains the meaning of the transitional system. Not that this one is wrong [au contraire, it expresses it right], but simply to avoid stalinist or anti-revolutionary misinterpretation. I would suggest it should be called "worker's democracy" , which it really is - a dictatorship of the working class through democratic system built for the working class. Simply to put an end to nebulosis like "inteligent absolutism" or "dictatorship for the workers" which nececarily bring the notion of need for bueraucacy and life-long bonapartist dictators.

[rice349]

First off, I think there is nothing wrong with a dictatorship of the working class. Second of all, it is a Leninist contribution to marxist theory--therefore, there are other theories that expound a different transitional period other than Lenin's (who believed in revolutionary vanguard and disciplined leadership).

Direct democracy is idealism. You label strong centralized governments as "stalinist" (first as if it was a bad thing), but also you said that "stalinism" is anti-revolutionary? How so? You mean to tell me that revisionism is more revolutionary than "stalinism?"

Anyways, in a bureucratic workers dictatorship there is still democracy. Stalin (although he surrounded himself with numerous supporters) was still responsible to the Central Committee. The mere existance of Central Committee, Politburo, and Orgburo represents democratic principles in a workers government.

The role of the dictatorship of the proletariat is specifically called that because it's going to take a strong government that can run efficiently without wasting time on petty debates when it comes to mobilizing and re-arranging an entire economic and social system. While it may not be the most pleasant form of society, it is the most necessary and ultimately in the best interest of the working class.

[Lamanov]

I didn't say the term is wrong [obviosly], but its misinterpretation. I didn't even think of questioning the soul meaning of it, which you unfortunately don't understand. If you did, you wouldn't mention the Leninist conception which goes agains yours.

Direct democracy is idealism? I see... So working class overthrowing the system in order to hand it over to the "disciplined vanguard" is supposed to be a materialist conception of social dynamics. Right.
"Strong centralised governement"... yes, when you say it, I can't help it, I see "bueraucracy" written all over it. But seriously, what is "Strong centralised governement", and is it nececarily bueraucratic? [Retorical Q]
For real, I see nothing but contradiction in your views which teare your conceptions apart, and we should settle it for good.
Lets talk materialism. Growth of the working class is proportional to development of capitalism. Developing-capitalism is developing urban-structures. Urbanism is proportional to intelectual capability of the population and its colective conciousness, including the proletariat. Since ideas don't determine the social dynamics, but the production of real life, revolutions must be determined by the specific elements, such as high level of productional forces - also - proportional to the level of exploatation, mass unemployment, material deversity - and since globalisation is bringing this to a global scale - polarisation between rich and poor countries.

Workers start their revolutions not because "vanguard" is teling them to do so, but because they are reaching the point where they can't take it any more [oversimplification, but to the point]. Vanguardist mission is to be dedicated to the revolution and the working class - not to political power - as we all agree. This position - again - isn't determined by the idea of it - but the material reality. How? Like this...

If development is low - vanguard, in direct hit to all of it's idealism is - in order to improve planned economy and distribution - destined to take drastic measures, such as stripping society of it's worker-democratic [soviet] principles, and imposing authority . Formation of such responsible authority with no recall leads to formation of so-called "intelectual labour" with bigger pay checks and more power for abusment, which - again - leads to careerism, so so-called "disciplined vanguard" can only sit back and watch how "dictatureship of the proletariat" turns into "dictatureship of the bueraucracy". Proletariat becomes the servant of the newely formed class with it's own interests, particulary interest of staying in office. They chose "leaders" amongst themselves, those who will defend those interests [historical example : USSR, Stalin]

I repeat, this is not socialism - it is the death of it.

On the other hand, when development is high enough, we have a completely different picture.
First of all - distrubution is no longer a problem because there are enough goods to share. There is no need for authority with no recall which has to say how much you can and can't have. Working class makes nececary concensus about distribution which at first keeps it's burgoise determination of sharing by productivity. Not beacuse the idea of it seems good, but because every worker sees this as his interest - working class acts by electing a centralised form of ITS dictatureship in order to organise planned economy which will to the fullest satisfy its needs, and thus, needs of [hopefully] every worker.
And since this form of worker's government is democraticly elected, every member of this centralised authority falls under a controll of every worker, and thus, he can be recalled at any time. His wage is no bigger than average worker's wage. *[Those who are fit will be elected to think and serve the interests, and no-one will even think of trying to abuse its given authority]

Anyway, in order to elect someone, be elected, take controll or express your thoughts - you have to WORK - and this is why - it&#39;s called the >Dictatureship OF the Proletariat<, or - as I would call it - [b]WORKER&#39;S DEMOCRACY.
*[by the way, this is the main element that encourages increase of productivity and employment]

Soviets/communes [as legislative/executive authority] fall under controll of the syndicates/worker-councils [as controll/electoral authority], and not some party which calls itsef "communist".

Since you&#39;ve mentioned Lenin, I&#39;ll sum it up with this:
1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.
2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
3. No standing army but the armed people.
4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

[NovelGentry]

Second of all, it is a Leninist contribution to marxist theory--therefore, there are other theories that expound a different transitional period other than Lenin&#39;s (who believed in revolutionary vanguard and disciplined leadership).

While there are other theories that do not fall under the same umbrella as Leninism in terms of the transitional stage, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a Leninist contribution. Maybe in the style of revolutionary vanguard and disciplined leadership it is, but even that is arguable as Lenin&#39;s idea of a vanguard was rather specific while the term vanguard itself can have a more general meaning.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, I think is fair to be said as being across the board in *communist* (I specify this over anarchist) theory. Although, the term itself could even imply a form of anarchist control in which the old ruling class is still oppressed, so long as there is no form of state.

The question really boils down to what form the dictatorship of the proletariat is to take. This is why the term itself probably shouldn&#39;t be renamed, at least if you&#39;re not looking to adhere to Marxism. It&#39;s difficult to know what kind of exact practical implementation Marx had in mind with the term, but one thing is certain that the proletariat is to be in control. As far as Leninism goes, I find it difficult to really say the proletariat is in control. More specifically, the party is in control, at least above and beyond that of the proletariat as a whole. Within that party there are really a select number of individuals in control. This happens regardless of top->bottom or bottom->top rule, it happens in general when you have a top and bottom.

In that sense, I have no disagreement with the original poster, that it should be workers democracy. Remove top and bottom, and simply flatten the playig field. Without that hierarchy there can be no alienation. What I don&#39;t agree with is calling the dictatorship of the proletariat strictly workers democracy. As the term could theoretically take on a number of forms.


Direct democracy is idealism.

For some aspects, for others, particularly legislative, it makes as much sense as representative democracy.


but also you said that "stalinism" is anti-revolutionary?

Actually he didn&#39;t say this, he said "but simply to avoid stalinist or anti-revolutionary misinterpretation." This does not imply they are the same, it simply implies they both have a misinterpretation of what the dictatorship of the proletariat is or should look like. I would agree.


The mere existance of Central Committee, Politburo, and Orgburo represents democratic principles in a workers government.

Of course, cause without a doubt if Stalin didn&#39;t represent the workers, the central committee had to. That was sarcasm by the way. This is no different then claiming a senator or prime minister in a bourgeois representative democracy represents the people of that land. It&#39;s foolish to think they do, even if something like compulsory voting is in place to ensure everyone is putting in their two cents. The problem is of course a) what are your options, are you even presented with options that appeal to you? b) If do have the option to elect ANYONE you feel represents you, are they given a fair chance?

If I&#39;m not mistaken, anything above the actual first degree soviet level of representation required the person to be a member of the party. What if 78% of the people disagreed with the party&#39;s motion/platform in general? It&#39;s a bit difficult for them to get apt representation when they can&#39;t have representative outside the party.

Claiming the mere existence of other representative does not remove the centralize nature of it, it simply says it&#39;s not a monarchy or an individual dictatorship. But of course, then you have to wonder what would have happened if anyone REALLY opposed Stalin. Why was Trotsky exiled again?


The role of the dictatorship of the proletariat is specifically called that because it&#39;s going to take a strong government that can run efficiently without wasting time on petty debates when it comes to mobilizing and re-arranging an entire economic and social system.

That&#39;s a really shaft assumption. You take a term dictator and use it to imply strength alone. The only thing that a dictatorship assures is that there is no say outside of who is the dictator. In the case of "dictatorship of the proletariat" the proletariat is to be the dictator. It&#39;s not "dictatorship of the party" or "dictatorship of the central committee" or "dictatorship of a strong revolutionary government." It is dictatorship of the proletariat -- I think it&#39;s difficult to consider something such if indeed the proletariat is in a position to be misrepresented, which is a position offered by anything OTHER than worker&#39;s democracy.

[Lamanov]

* I basicly agree with NovelGenry.


What I don&#39;t agree with is calling the dictatorship of the proletariat strictly workers democracy. As the term could theoretically take on a number of forms.

Hmm... I see what you mean. But it&#39;s more exact that the original one. Anyway, [since we&#39;ve posted at a &#39;same&#39; time] as you can see I agree it&#39;s basicly a same thing. Only the name changes.

[NovelGentry]

Indeed, the problem is of course Marxism presents it as it does, which very much can be misleading... I&#39;m not for changing that aspect of it. There&#39;s no way for me to ensure what I believe Marx meant is what he meant, so let people infer that for themselves. If it were to change, it would be a constituted part of a new ideology, where that dictatorship is proposed to take that specific form, as Lenin&#39;s "dictatorship of the proletariat" took a specific form.

In that sense, feel free to use that specific term, I often do -- but don&#39;t just begin replacing Marxist use of the DoP with it, instead build of Marxism, and make it clear you&#39;re doing so.

[rice349]

I didn&#39;t say the term is wrong [obviosly], but its misinterpretation. I didn&#39;t even think of questioning the soul meaning of it, which you unfortunately don&#39;t understand. If you did, you wouldn&#39;t mention the Leninist conception which goes agains yours.

Im not accusing you of believing the term to be wrong, I&#39;m disagreeing that its interpretation in which Stalin implemented is wrong, on the contrary, I agree with it, hence the basis of my entire argument. So, basically I was challenging the role of democracy in a transitional government, and how it should be very limited.


So working class overthrowing the system in order to hand it over to the "disciplined vanguard" is supposed to be a materialist conception of social dynamics

No, the disciplined worker&#39;s vanguard would be the one&#39;s directing the revolution; hence it would not be just handed over to them they would be leading it from the beginning.


Lets talk materialism. Growth of the working class is proportional to development of capitalism. Developing-capitalism is developing urban-structures. Urbanism is proportional to intelectual capability of the population and its colective conciousness, including the proletariat. Since ideas don&#39;t determine the social dynamics, but the production of real life, revolutions must be determined by the specific elements, such as high level of productional forces - also - proportional to the level of exploatation, mass unemployment, material deversity - and since globalisation is bringing this to a global scale - polarisation between rich and poor countries.

Yes, I don&#39;t beleive i stated anything in which i refuted materialism--however, not all the working class will be completely polarised as we see now...the education and leadership of the proletariat are what is necessary now. Have you ever been to the states? There is plenty of exploitation occurring right now and the workers are completely clueless of class consciousness. Materialism has shown that this polarization is occurring, but we see something quite rare and intriguing in large capitalist nations such as the United States, mass urbanization has lead to the development of a middle class that has very little in common with the traditional proletariat. In order ot have a revolution in which Marx foresaw, yet there are those who are left out of this and fit the more traditional description of the proletariat. Hence, in industrialized nations we have a middle-class that makes up a large portion of the nation-- and is not quite bourgoeis, and not quite proletariat? If we wait for the further development of matieralism in industrialized nation what is going to happen to those working poor who do fit the description of proletariat and are suffering the exploitations of capitalism, rather than those who don&#39;t own the means of production, but are actually benefitting from it?

This is where a vanguard party becomes necessary for leading the working class in education and organization. A vanguard party which heads the revolutionary workes&#39; movement, must first bring class consciousness to the workers who don&#39;t have time to wait for the futuristic rapture of a massive proletariat revolution.

The soviets were able to create that power vacuum with a minority of the overall population on their side. This could be possible in highly industrialized nations as well; especially in which the more industrialized nations get (like the U.S.), more attempts at discarding class consciousness are being undertaken by the capitalists (current trade unions, small concessions to workers such as a minimum wage and social security, etc.) While soem aspects of materialism have proven to be very true, the reactionary forces of the U.S. and other Western industrialized nations have created an atmosphere of actually turning the poor (with the exception of some of the homeless) against communism. This, is where some aspects of dialectical idealism have to intertwine with materialism (although materialism is definitely the superior of the two as far as factuality and being logically true).



Workers start their revolutions not because "vanguard" is teling them to do so, but because they are reaching the point where they can&#39;t take it any more [oversimplification, but to the point]. Vanguardist mission is to be dedicated to the revolution and the working class - not to political power - as we all agree. This position - again - isn&#39;t determined by the idea of it - but the material reality. How? Like this...

Yes this is the best alternative but its a lot more difficult to raise revolutionary initiatives in the working class despite their level and degree of exploitation. For instance, I was recently in Colombia where there is mass exploitation against workers and peasants, yet many of them cling to their reactionary religious backgrounds that cause them to foolishly denounce communism and progressive change that has been instilled upon them as evil and detrimental to their faith. The role of the vanguardist should always be dedicated to the revolution and the working class, not political power, but after the overthrow of capitalism there is going to be a power vacuum--and who&#39;s going to fill this??? This is where another interpretation of "dictatorship of the proletariat" comes in--a dictatorship of a party in which the proletariat and peasantry are the members. This one-party dictatorship fills the power void which would be wide open for remaining capitalists, reactionaries, etc.

With all this in mind, there are two alternatives: poor nations versus rich nations, or the poor within the rich nations overthrowing their own government and alligning themselves with the poor nations in an attempt to spread socialism while also building it within their own economic and socio-politico system.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not wait for capitalism to develop in Russia, this development had to be undertaken during the socialist period. Some might say this is why the Soviet Union failed, but it could also be said that the fall was caused by revisionism in the hands of Khruschev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev.

Similarly, the success of socialism depends on the revolutionary movements within large industrialized nations, which unfortunately, do not seem to be infiltrated with strong class consciousness. Therefore, leading a movement that is not under mass popular support means the power vacuum will have to be filled by a strong, centralized, totalitarian government.

A loose, decentralized government facing hostility both at home and abroad, will fall quickly to the counter-revolutionary forces. Once a totalitarian government is instilled, it will have the ability to deal with the bourgois however it feels necessary, and then dael with the growing problem which is the middle-class.


development is low - vanguard, in direct hit to all of it&#39;s idealism is - in order to improve planned economy and distribution - destined to take drastic measures, such as stripping society of it&#39;s worker-democratic [soviet] principles, and imposing authority [bueraucratic]. Formation of such responsible authority with no recall leads to formation of so-called "intelectual labour" with bigger pay checks and more power for abusment, which - again - leads to careerism, so so-called "disciplined vanguard" can only sit back and watch how "dictatureship of the proletariat" turns into "dictatureship of the bueraucracy". Proletariat becomes the servant of the newely formed class with it&#39;s own interests, particulary interest of staying in office. They chose "leaders" amongst themselves, those who will defend those interests [historical example : USSR, Stalin]

Yes, I agree the new vanguard government will have to take drastic measures such as the seizure of private property, collectivization, and removal of democratic principles from the workers movement. However, these would only be temporary. Once the threats facing socialism (ultimately communism) are dealt with, these will be reinstalled and eventually the state would wither away. However, to prevent careerism and the formation of "intelectual labour," the transitional period of socialism could be altered a bit. Perhaps a model that more resembles communism could be instilled. I said models because there would still be a state, however, with the removal of wages, and power already assumed, we could create at least a classless society in which their is total state ownership. Again, this may sounds severely rigid and un-democratic, but certain things may have to be sacrificed for the best interest of the workers.

To sum up my argument: Marx&#39;s materialism hasn&#39;t completely turned out the way in which he (or all of us for that matter) envisioned it; instead, we&#39;ve developed a quagmire in which high development has created a third class that doens&#39;t own the means of production, but is far better off than marx&#39;s interpretation of the working class. This class is anti-communist, and for the most part semi-bourgoies liberal. Therefore, because materialism hasn&#39;t completely held true as it was supposed to, certain drastic measures similar to those which had to be taken at a time of low-development, are necessary for successful socialism in the modern industrialized nation. Thus, creating a need for a totalitarian state.

[encephalon]

if I end up the head of a stlinist regime in some alternate universe, the first thing I&#39;m doing is getting rid of all Stalinists. Which is kind of what stalin did, strangely enough.

You simply can&#39;t have a dictatorship of the proletariat without the direct dictatorship of the proletariat. Not in the name of the proletariat, not by one singular proletarian, not by a party that excludes the vast majority of the proletariat it claims to represent. You have the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class only when the proletariat as a class has direct control of said dictatorship.

Unless there&#39;s some other way to allow the whole class to control what gets done that I&#39;m somehow unaware of, this is achieved by democratic control.

I generally refrain from posting quotes to illustrate a point, but I&#39;m making an exception..

"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx

[Lamanov]

"Disciplined vanguard". Hmmm.... yes... &#39;the leaders, the thinkers, the brave dedicated men.&#39; Right. But when?
Seriously, if vanguard represents those that are more dedicated to the class war and class interests, what happens to them when &#39;our side wins&#39; ? [RQ]
You would be surprised how the &#39;vanguard&#39; takes up a new form... new blood even. After half of them dies and other half gets old and tired there is no vanguard any more. Just a party full of newely-commers who pin stars to their sleaves but who don&#39;t understand nothing except their own stomacks.
[a story from my country] It&#39;s funny how same people who proudly call themselves "communists" overnigt turn to nazi vultures, new &#39;gentlemen&#39; with profound new identity and recent epifanies of Jesus and Allah. Former comrades become war criminals and the new-formed capitalists.

There is no place for such Bonapartism in Socialism.
Those that dedicated their whole life to the struggle should have no worries about will the working class chose them as their representatives. Those that assume they proved themselves will proudly take a chance to withstand a public criticism and a chance to be confirmed by their working class comrades as their representatives, and when they seize to satisfy the class interest they would step down if the workers decide so.


"mass urbanization has lead to the development of a middle class that has very little in common with the traditional proletariat."

Even if this is true , things are a bit more complicated than that...
Ah yes, the so-called "middle class".
First off, existance of this class is conditioned by the economical politics and a global economic position of that country. I capitalist countries, it exists within the small handfull of rich ones which are on top of the financial imperialist &#39;food-chain&#39;. Due to global capitalism and imperialism wealth of these coutries exists upon the cheap labour of poor countries [Computer: made in USA, everything inside: made in Taiwan], and their stability depends upon the social-peace which exists only on their wealth. In so-called socialist ones this &#39;civilian society&#39; depends upon the centrall planned economy, well, actually it&#39;s efficiency. We all witnesed how this &#39;civilian society&#39; revealed itself as a fragile construction which dissapears in a day when economical balance is destroyed. [fall of the USSR, war in SFRY etc.]. When proletariat of the poor countries starts to revolt against the imperialst capitalism what do you think happens to the middle class, their fine wage and their nice jobs?&#33; Until then - unseen - class consciousness will bichslap them so hard untill they realise they have only one thing left to do.


[i][this is just a fist part of my reply. I&#39;m not finished yet... later]

[rice349]

Until then - unseen - class consciousness will bichslap them so hard untill they realise they have only one thing left to do

Until then---can we with clear consciences wait for this class and material consciousness to arrive? (i&#39;ll wait to say more when you get to finish your response)

[Lamanov]

Power vacuum? Again with the stalinist conceptions of socialism.
You don&#39;t get it. There IS NO more vanguard after the revolution to fill any vacuum. If there is no economic ground for socialism vanguard gets squeesed out by the oportunists, and all the story falls down the drain. On the other hand - just how I explained at the end of my 2nd and 4th post - if there are all conditions for transformation vanguard comes to be those who are fit to serve [or to continue to serve and fight for] the proletariat, and as such THEY WILL BE CHOSEN by the proletariat.. [can we all say: "democracy"]


"This one-party dictatorship fills the power void which would be wide open for remaining capitalists, reactionaries, etc."

Reactionaries? This is the same retard story stalinists used to tell even decades after the October to justify all one bueraucrat has. [can we all say: "sovbur"]
You really think next time workers won&#39;t think about what they are doing when they give up their revolutionary right [just like early soviet period, before stalinist reaction] of running the society. "Vanguard" or "the Party" will never again poses executive power unless it is chosen on demcratic elections.


"Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not wait for capitalism to develop in Russia, this development had to be undertaken during the socialist period."

Lenin also wanted worker&#39;s democracy... no wonder you didn&#39;t reply to the rest of my [leninist] post.
Besides, is this supposed to mean "democracy=capitalist reaction" ? [RQ] I don&#39;t see how any of your post goes against the fact/hypothesis [whatever you want to call it] that socialism can&#39;t work without democracy.
Oh, please, just don&#39;t say - "he was wrong and than he changed his mind"... better, read his last letter to the party, and his work "Cleansing the party" and "How to organise peasant-worker&#39;s inspections".

Actually, I&#39;ve red the rest of of your post, and there is nothing that disproves any of my views... just old-fashioned sovbur-stalinist/maoist/titoist rethorics.
Also, I&#39;ve adressed the "growing problem - middle class" and there is no more to say about it.
Oh, yes... almost forgot


"can we with clear consciences wait for this class and material consciousness to arrive? (i&#39;ll wait to say more when you get to finish your response)"

Yes.

Their material status depends upon the imperialist economy... when it crumbles down with revolutionary uprising of the 3rd world capital-slaves - I&#39;ll repeat - "what do you think happens to the middle class, their fine wage and their nice jobs?&#33;"

We&#39;ve all seen how the middle class consciensces changes rapidly depending on their material status. We can witness it everywhere.

I won&#39;t go any further in this dicussion, it&#39;s just no challenge, besides, everyone here agrees that >dictatorship of the proletariat is democratic system of the working class<

[rice349]

Your responses are all based on your interpretation of what the worker&#39;s need and want and your love of democratic freedom. I think we&#39;re in agreement that we do not see eye to eye on this topic to say the least...

To be perfectly honest with you, i don&#39;t give a fuck if the workers want democracy or not; i advocate workers involvement in the state but to some degree, but in my opinion centralized totalitarianism is the most efficient systematic route to communism.

Second of all, the real basis of my continuous use of the "counter-revolutionary" argument (i might as well be quite honest), is for the purging of society of ALL capitalists, reactionaries, as well as protecting the party&#39;s stronghold and solidify grips on power to prevent people like yourself from gaining enough influence to the point where you might actually have some power. Again, the political and economic power is my ultimate goal, communism is simply a means to the way as well as brinign about an end to capitalism and freeing the working class from their ruling caste and setting up first-a dicatatorship in the name of the proletariat which--with increased involvement by the workers-eventually a dictatorship of the proletariat, then eventually the whithering away of the state.

Your entire argument is based on what you see as the only productive route to socialism. I&#39;m not judging because I&#39;m doing the exact same thing. I know Lenin&#39;s beliefs on democracy and political involvement, however, i never said i was an orthodox marxist-leninist. Alot of my opinions on governmental powers and organization are completely independent (meaning that i don&#39;t derive them from others despite their being shared).


You don&#39;t get it. There IS NO more vanguard after the revolution to fill any vacuum

That&#39;s assuming the revolution is mass backed, what if it is a minority of people over-taking the government through less conventional means?

I know I didn&#39;t address eveerything from you previous post i&#39;ll get back to it at another time or not i don&#39;t care. Also, your devout faith in material and class consciousness of the working class with increasing exploitation is putting an awful lot of faith in the belief that with the likes of a very reactionary workforce (like the in the United States) exploitation will be able to incite revolutionary beliefs and ideals within the working class. This is true to some degree, but i doubt it will bring about the sufficient amount of people for a mass revolution. Everythign i argued for is in the case in which the revolutionary forces are comprised of a minority of individuals.

After the current ruling caste has been displaced you don&#39;t see a vacuum? The masses won&#39;t be ready to assume power, therefore it is the revolutionary vanguard who assumes power. Those cadre leaders will then create a party-government in which the party dictates societal and economic decisions. THe public will be then go through a campaign of vast and radical changes in whcih it will be equipped for ultimately a transition to communism.

[LSD]

Second of all, the real basis of my continuous use of the "counter-revolutionary" argument (i might as well be quite honest), is for the purging of society of ALL capitalists, reactionaries, as well as protecting the party&#39;s stronghold and solidify grips on power to prevent people like yourself from gaining enough influence to the point where you might actually have some power.

You have just underlined what scares so many of us about Vanguardist communism. "people like yourself" in this context does not refer to capitalists or conservatives or reactionaries but to honest communists who have practical differences of oppinion on how best to liberate the workers.

If you plan to prevent even honest leftist discussion what chance is there that serious debate will occur? The will of the "leader" or "Central Committee" will be law even when its obviously wrong. This is a very dangerous thing. Communism is new ground for all of us, none of us knows how a society will run, nor do we know how to solve the problems that will inevitable come up. Honestly, we cannot even yet imagine what many of the problems will be&#33;

So the worst thing you can do is to stiffle internal discussion on how society should operate. One you declare the voice of the "party" to be all that can be heard, we are right back in the USSR or the PRC or the DPRK.

Communism will only work if everyone is consulted and everyone contributes.

Top-down communism is an oxymoron.


After the current ruling caste has been displaced you don&#39;t see a vacuum? The masses won&#39;t be ready to assume power, therefore it is the revolutionary vanguard who assumes power. Those cadre leaders will then create a party-government in which the party dictates societal and economic decisions. THe public will be then go through a campaign of vast and radical changes in whcih it will be equipped for ultimately a transition to communism.

And what happens when this "transition" is over?

Does the "vanguard cadre-leader party-government" go away?

Maybe they&#39;ll decide that the transition isn&#39;t quite done and they need to stick around for another, oh, hundred years&#33; :lol:

Your faith in the ability of these "cadre-leaders" to resist temptation is staggering. Considering that it will most likely be people who seek power who gravitate to the top, it is highly unlikely that they will "give it up" when the appointed time comes.


To be perfectly honest with you, i don&#39;t give a fuck if the workers want democracy or not; i advocate workers involvement in the state but to some degree, but in my opinion centralized totalitarianism is the most efficient systematic route to communism.

"WORKER OF THE WORLD, FOLLOW ME&#33;&#33; I WILL LIBERATE YOU...BUT I DON&#39;T GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU WANT&#33;&#33;"

Very inspirational. :rolleyes:

The only way you&#39;re going to have a functional workers&#39; society, is if you have a functional worker&#39;s society. That means the workers run things, not you.

You don&#39;t "give a fuck [what] the workers want"? Fine, well they don&#39;t give a fuck about you either. They&#39;ll liberate themselves far better without your brilliant leadership.


Again, the political and economic power is my ultimate goal, communism is simply a means to the way

I&#39;m not even sure what that means :unsure: Communism is a "means"for you to gain "political and economic power"?&#33;?

Wow, that&#39;s scary.....but very Vanguardist.

[rice349]

You have just underlined what scares so many of us about Vanguardist communism. "people like yourself" in this context does not refer to capitalists or conservatives or reactionaries but to honest communists who have practical differences of oppinion on how best to liberate the workers

Sorry, i automatically figured capitalists and reactionaries would be already classified in that group so i resisted using them again, but they are the main focus of counter-revolutionary removal.

Second, while this is how i personally view and these are all my individual beliefs, i plan on keeping them quiet outside of this forum in which i can work with others and keep on the side-lines until the right time for my opinions and my goals to be expressed once i were to build up a strong enough constituency, hypothetically speaking of course&#33;

[NovelGentry]

Hence, in industrialized nations we have a middle-class that makes up a large portion of the nation-- and is not quite bourgoeis, and not quite proletariat?

Something of a petty bourgeoisie?

I maintain two very large issues with the term "middle class" -- at least as it is used as a wealth class. The first is that it distorts the relationship the worker has to the means of production. You can be a poor home business owner an you can be a rather well of worker.

Property relations are KEY here, as materially speaking it is the obsoletion of such property relations which will push us in that direction and thus the proof that their mere constructs perpetuated by the ruling class.

The second problem I have with the term middle class is that often times it is a simple way for people to imply that group at the top of the proletariat (who is indeed proletariat) and that group at the bottom of the bourgeoisie, who is indeed bourgeoisie, and of course, the petty bourgeoisie.

Whether or not these people (whichever class they come from) side right now with the bourgeoisie, and uphold the whole specacle of capitalist society is a non-issue. It is not until we see these property relations becoming obsolete (which I would argue we are on the verge of now) that we will begin to see any clear defintion of who is actually siding with who.

Any revolutionary movement BEFORE this is clear -- is jumping the gun. That is my problem with Leninism.

So how can we actually see the changes in social structure that lead to these property relations. We&#39;ve already seen the US shift more towards a services economy, as opposed to a manufacturing monolith. This is a sign that property relations are not only changing, but have changed, and will change more drastically soon. Manufacturing DOES still exist in the US -- and as strange as it may sound, if technology adapts to displace the production here WITHOUT it shifting to the third world, there is little doubt the bourgeoisie of this society will still withold such advancment from other societies.

Why would intel give up all it&#39;s research and development to say... the chinese government? They wouldn&#39;t. And this is why you see advancing technology in these countries (China for example has the dragon processor) which although seemingly modeled of technological progression here, is significantly less advanced.

So we see the markets shift in their purpose, labor relations, and thus property relations -- but the less advanced countries adapt this (imperialism or no imperialism, they are bound to the same path). Imperialism, however, another word as moot as middle class, is the classic example of how capitalism actually copes with it&#39;s own growth. The relations change in the first world, but the technology has either not advanced so far yet or the market has yet to been completely saturated, and the OLD social relations are shifted elsewhere -- with force if not cunning.

All of this wraps up in a nice little ball, and if you ask me falls in line perfectly with everything Marx said, and thus I have no reason to suspect the so called "middle class" will deteriorate just as Marx said. And that is when the distinctive class antagonisms disappear, and revolution should at least be in our sights -- no answer yet on whether or not it would HAVE to occur at this point. The capitalists could of course prolong it somehow -- in doing so we see the following:


This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the Ten-Hours Bill in England was carried.

Marx is talking about the same social compromise we all know and love which holds off revolution, but inevitably does little to stop it -- And indeed you can see an extremely LARGE differentiation happening between those in the US at the top, and those at the lowest of the low. Compare our so-called middle class now to the middle class of the booming twenties (accounting for diffentiation in population size). If indeed you find it to be smaller, it is by no chance that the proletariat itself has grown back "stronger, firmer, mightier." And those in the middle of it are falling, with time, to either side -- just as was said.

The problem as you see it is of course -- this middle class represents and obstacle. But it does so by chance that more than you realize the necessity for revolution, you actually WANT revolution. So much so that you&#39;re willing to jump the gun, and probably by a fairly large period of time (although obviously not nearly as large as the jump was in Russia 1917).

But it is not YOU who is to overcome the middle class obstacle, indeed, it is history and time whichi s to do so by the natural order which capitalism follows. The middle class, when revolution is ripe, will not even be an obstacle.