Power : Coup D'etat or Mass Revolution ?

[Redmau5]

Which method do people think is best ? A coup in the name of the working class by a group or a mass proletariat revolution when they have become class conscious ?

[RedAnarchist]

The best method is the one where the people, after gaining class conscious, are united, and overthrow the ruling classes with one undivided act, rather than letting some detached vanguard overthrow then take over.

[JazzRemington]

I'm for mass, social revolution. A political revolution, or one started by a minority, will only result in a regime change.

[Angelo De Orvaa]

What is best is what is best for the people, if the workers are not yet conscious and are unable to successfully collect and arise en masse' then a small group of them will have to in order to relieve the collective misery and take the brunt of the conflict unto themselves instead of perhaps allowing suffering to fall upon those that may not yet be mentally nor physically strong enough to take on the powers that be.
The best provable formula for revolution is a small cadre of very strong and intelligent individuals who rally the people behind them and gain their political and economic support. It is these people's responsibility to take control and once in control they must relinquesh their power to the people from whose support they absolutely needed. Even if the workers did not directly participate as a whole they did support those who did and raised them up to meet their needs and desires in good faith. Sometimes this works fairly well (I know there are examples but my memory fails me at the moment...maybe there aren't any and I am completely wrong but I do believe there have been a few successful people's revolutions that did not go horribly arry). Because of the various divisions in human societies it would be very difficult for an entire class of people, comprised of millions of diverse individuals, to work together as whole without much experience first. This communist attitude could take decades to a few hundred years (Given the advancement of capitalism and how much exploitation is allowed).
Socialism has actually caused a problem, we now have a mixed market system which is based on satisfying the consumer at all costs. So now the consumer, which is actually a worker but on a differen't side of the production process, believes himself to be seperate from the workers and whenever they rise to get better wages he notices the prices of his commodities rising and then blames THAT group of workers for being selfish and greedy. So what we have is a back and forth tug of war between the workers (Who are slightly empowered and made docile by the small number of laws and regulations/ social programs instituted by the more liberal bourgeois) the producers, and now the consumers (Comprised of the petty bourgeois and the proletarian middle-class). This seems to only be increasing the divisions instead of bringing everyone together. With the rise of the proletarian middle-class (Due to union efforts to raise wages and an increase in highly skilled, but still wage-based, work) has created a third division in the previous duel (prolet Vs. capitalist) now making it prolet vs. middle prolet vs capitalist....I could even put in the petty bourgeois as a fourth division but they are technically capitalists to a certain extent, I do consider managers to be a form even though they do not personally own the means of production they are representitives OF those who do.
Now, the reason why I went into that schpeel is to point out that every little bit helps. We made need a few "mini-revolutions" to help raise class awareness across these new divisions. Right now a small group of revolutionaries are all the working class can muster until these new right wing reforms are really felt and the middle-prolet can see that they really do still have a connection with those lesser groups who are still more visibly enslaved. There is now, in America, a sort of disillusionment going about amongst the former timid middle-prolet (by the way, for an example of this group I will put up the clerical office worker, the teacher, and various technicians and computer programmers who are now paid quite well) is seeing that they are NOT becoming as rich as they thought they would, their pay is not even going up now that the major techno-crisis is over with.
We need a cadre of commies/anarchists/far-far-far-far left socialists to wake these people up and even fight for the rights they are unwilling or unable to take for themselves. But we need them to be responsible, as I said before, and that is very difficult. Perhaps a more service based ideology regarding the revolutionary left is needed. There is a tendancy towards elitism which has rendered many a far left government tyrannical and completely detached from the society and people it is supposed to govern. Communists/Anarchists/Socialists must know and understand WHY they are these things. You must ask yourselves what made you adopt these ideas.
Was it because society has neglected you and you wanted to choose a counter-culture idea? Then why did not become a nazi instead?
Is it because you think these are the smartest ideas available created by the most intelligent people and you just like to experiment with social structures or would like to see how your own ideas work? Then who are you really fighting for?
I've noticed a disturbing trend in the dogmatic lingo of the earlier communists dating all the way back to the french revolution (Pre-bonaparte).
"I must defend the revolution"
"Socialism must be advanced"
"I will fight for the revolution"
Does anyone see any mention of the WORKERS in these phrases? How often did the soviet union talk about its own people when it was describing its policies? I was reading a text on soviet economics to find that the even said that their economy was not based on satisfying the needs of the people but to advance socialism (Whatever that was supposed to mean).
If the workers are to ever have their true state we need a group of individuals dedicated not to ideals, not to their own love of fighting or experimenting (These can be important qualities but must be layed down once the revolution is over and the results of the experiments have come in)..we need people who love the PEOPLE, people who are utterly devoted to the workers, people who believe that they are the betters of the lower classes, not the vangaurds of the working class, and not the all knowing and all powerfull leaders of the proletarian but their servants! In my eyes you are either a worker, a capitalist, or a servant of the workers or capitalist. Every college student is indebted to the workers, each one must choose whether or not they will be working for themselves, or for the people.
Ideology can be a very good concept, but it is always ALWAYS second to the needs of the people, even Lenin knew this. Lenin made alot of mistakes in the beginning, but he soon saw his responsibility to his people and had he lived awhile longer, the Soviet Union would have been a much differen't, and better, place.

[Angelo De Orvaa]

Note: my previous post has bunches of spelling errors because I seem to be a terrible typest. Hopefully you will get the jist of it...the worst one is that I said "they must feel that they are the betters of the working class"....obviously I do not feeeeeel that way..just take the words in the context of the sentence and paragraph and you will do fine....this kinda goes for all my posts in the near and far future..and yes...they will probably be just as long or longer...good luck!

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:22 PM
Which method do people think is best ? A coup in the name of the working class by a group or a mass proletariat revolution when they have become class conscious ?
The latter of course, the working class itself has to take control, not some vanguard as in maoist China was the case.

[Roses in the Hospital]

No system can be justified without the support of the massess...

[Redmau5]

But the way things seem to be going, the working class doesn't seem to be "awakening" to their own exploitation. Many parts of the proletariat don't even seem interested in politics, and are only concerned with furthering themselves via the capitalist system, rather than overthrowing it.

What worries me is this ; what if this sort of system continues and the working class don't awaken en masse as Marx predicted ?

[rice349]

What worries me is this ; what if this sort of system continues and the working class don't awaken en masse as Marx predicted ?
This is preciseily the problem Makaveli_05, while i would definitely prefer mass revolution--however, how much longer can we let the trend of worsening conditions with the absense of increasing class consciousness continue?? The trend in United States would show we might need a group to lead the revolution and help inspire class consciousness....

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:50 PM
This is preciseily the problem Makaveli_05, while i would definitely prefer mass revolution--however, how much longer can we let the trend of worsening conditions with the absense of increasing class consciousness continue?? The trend in United States would show we might need a group to lead the revolution and help inspire class consciousness....
Exactly. The working class seem less-politicised now than they have ever been. Most only seem concerned with getting ahead of their fellow worker, rather than standing beside him. People are obsessed with accumulating more capital while other workers become even poorer. As far as i can see this trend is only going to get worse, which is why something needs to be done soon.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Mar 26 2005, 04:00 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Mar 26 2005, 04:00 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 03:50 PM
This is preciseily the problem Makaveli_05, while i would definitely prefer mass revolution--however, how much longer can we let the trend of worsening conditions with the absense of increasing class consciousness continue?? The trend in United States would show we might need a group to lead the revolution and help inspire class consciousness....
Exactly. The working class seem less-politicised now than they have ever been. Most only seem concerned with getting ahead of their fellow worker, rather than standing beside him. People are obsessed with accumulating more capital while other workers become even poorer. As far as i can see this trend is only going to get worse, which is why something needs to be done soon. [/b]
A few things:

There is definitely a raise of consciousness (http://www.millionworkermarch.org) in the USA amongst the members of the working class: the fact however that there is no real political medium to combine forces (with this I mean a mass workers' party) makes it more difficult to take class consciousness to a higher level.

Off course the members of the working class everywhere are trying to improve their position. But when in fact, as I already mentioned, there is no means of organising the workers and building the movement, the workers loss the perspective that fighting together is what best serves their interest.

[NovelGentry]

I would support any movement -- but in the end I believe only one is indefinite.

[rice349]

lol it is usually very, very rare that i actually have arguments in which i'm in agreement with a trotskyite (Makaveli_05)

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:30 PM
lol it is usually very, very rare that i actually have arguments in which i'm in agreement with a trotskyite (Makaveli_05)

Which says enough about the false character of the arguments of Makaveli_05 :D! In his case I'm expecting it to be caused by lack of understanding....in your case however it's just caused by a degenerated vision on the revolutionairy potential of the working class....this is common with sectarian people!

[NovelGentry]

This is preciseily the problem Makaveli_05, while i would definitely prefer mass revolution--however, how much longer can we let the trend of worsening conditions with the absense of increasing class consciousness continue?? The trend in United States would show we might need a group to lead the revolution and help inspire class consciousness....

You may need a group to agitate and inspire class consciousness. But that's different from a group actually performing a "revolution" or a coup. The actual overthrow of capitalism should be in the hands of the working class as a whole. What you want to do to try and convince them the time is now is up to you.

I agree things have to be done to agitate, but I don't agree we simply try and move on without them.


Exactly. The working class seem less-politicised now than they have ever been.

This changes with varying levels of material consciousness based on material conditions -- the fact of the matter is, for a good portion of Americans, things aren't bad enough. Not to say there's not those who are in real shit, hell, 4,000,000 kids under 6 go to be hungry. But 4,000,000 and all their parents and siblings is not going to be a majority -- probably not even half of a majority. It seems so bad to you because you've already got consciousness, hell, even the most regulated and welfare friendly capitalist systems probably seem bad to you. They seem bad to me too.


Most only seem concerned with getting ahead of their fellow worker, rather than standing beside him.

Yes, this is true. And just as Marx said, the working class is pinned agianst the working class, fighting wars for the bourgeoisie and fighting amongst themselves. This is a process, and we are on our way.


People are obsessed with accumulating more capital while other workers become even poorer.

If by people you mean the bourgoeisie, yes. But I wouldn't suspect them to do any differently as that is what they're SUPPOSED to do. If by other workers... then you have a sad understanding of what capital is. Workers cannot make capital, if they could, I cannot see why they would remain workers.


As far as i can see this trend is only going to get worse, which is why something needs to be done soon.

Yes, it is going to get worse, which is precisely what is needed before people become fully materially conscious -- and in doing so begin to realize their position and class definitions, and with our help can rapidly become class conscious. Which is precisely why you shouldn't do anything soon -- let it sit it's course.

Every single example of a nation that has jumped the gun, by centuries or decades on the move towards socialism has historically eventually collapsed or is collapsing into capitalism. For those nations that jump the gun that aren't collapsing yet, they will. See: Cuba after Castro dies.

You jump now, and you're gonna stall it and watch it reemerge later on. I'm not into giving capitalism a second lease on life, you shouldn't be either. When we get rid of it, I want it dead for good.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by RevolutionarySocialist [email protected] 26 2005, 04:31 PM
Which says enough about the false character of the arguments of Makaveli_05
I seem to recall a certain "trotskyite" who took part in the 1917 October Revolution held the view that a small group of highly disciplined revolutionaries could take power and then go down the road to socialism after reactionry forces had been dealt with. I wonder who that was ?? :blink:

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Mar 26 2005, 04:39 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Mar 26 2005, 04:39 PM)
RevolutionarySocialist [email protected] 26 2005, 04:31 PM
Which says enough about the false character of the arguments of Makaveli_05
I seem to recall a certain "trotskyite" who took part in the 1917 October Revolution held the view that a small group of highly disciplined revolutionaries could take power and then go down the road to socialism after reactionry forces had been dealt with. I wonder who that was ?? :blink: [/b]
I seem to recall that this small group of highly disciplined revolutionaries were part of a mass workers' movement who overthrew the capitalist system. :)

[Redmau5]

As far as i know Trotsky never criticised the way the Bolsheviks took power, which is what we have been talking about. Just because im in agreement with Rice about the different methods of taking power doesn't mean i agree with him about Stalinism.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:51 PM
As far as i know Trotsky never criticised the way the Bolsheviks took power, which is what we have been talking about. Just because im in agreement with Rice about the different methods of taking power doesn't mean i agree with him about Stalinism.
Then why don't you respond to my comment on the character of the movement?


I seem to recall that this small group of highly disciplined revolutionaries were part of a mass workers' movement who overthrew the capitalist system. :D

[Redmau5]

They might not have had the majority vote, but they were going to do what was best for the proletariat. If Lenin had not have died so early or if Trotsky had of assumed power, then im confident the USSR would have become truly socialist, and not the degenerative worker's state it became under Stalin.

[comrade_mufasa]

If a vanguard must creat the revolution then the revoultion is not true. The revolution will manifest itself when the conditons are ripe. Some of you are saying that the working class is not awar of what is going on. This shows that a revolution can not work at this time. When the revoultion happens it will be becouse the masses will feel it nesocery to do something. If a vanguard tries to create the revolution then, more then likly, a majority of the masses will not be for that revolution. when the revolution happens there will be many groups fighting for there ideals. It is our job at this time to open the eyes of the working class so that when the revolution happens the people will fight for a communist system. The masses can take care of themselves when the revolution happens they do not need a group of people to tell them when they need to fight. As we do not need the ruling class of the capitalist system to tell us what to do, we do not need the vanguard of some poly-revoluiton to tell us what to do.

[NovelGentry]

but they were going to do what was best for the proletariat.

There was no proletariat in Russia in 1917. To call the workers of Russiaa a proletariat is like calling an ant-farm a civilization.


Trotsky had of assumed power, then im confident the USSR would have become truly socialist, and not the degenerative worker's state it became under Stalin.

Maybe so, by chance that Trotsky realized you'd have to go further back before going forward. If I'm not mistaken Trotsky was a Menshivik at one point. If I'm also not mistaken, the idea of permanent revolution is one which oversees a slow progression and would thus be even willing to introduce some aspects of capitalism in order to develop into socialism. Return of the NEP with a larger open market for foodstuffs? Growth of peasant farms and possibly private industry alongside state regulation and state run industry? These things would have been far more likely under Trotsky, and he may very well would have developed an actual proletariat.

The problem is this, in developing a real proletariat, you have to develop a real bourgeoisie -- and don't think for a moment that there's not gonna be conflict. That said, another thing you would have seen with Trotsky was another civil war.

Good luck USSR, you were doomed from the start. May you rest in peace.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:41 PM
They might not have had the majority vote, but they were going to do what was best for the proletariat. If Lenin had not have died so early or if Trotsky had of assumed power, then im confident the USSR would have become truly socialist, and not the degenerative worker's state it became under Stalin.
Well...partly this is true....still the objective fact of the failed German revolution would have played an important role in the further development of the USSR as a socialist state.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

but they were going to do what was best for the proletariat.

There was no proletariat in Russia in 1917. To call the workers of Russiaa a proletariat is like calling an ant-farm a civilization.

Uhmm this is where you're wrong...off course there was a proletariat...it just didn't made up the majority of society.


If I'm not mistaken Trotsky was a Menshivik at one point.

Hmm this is new for me <_< ...maybe you can elaborate?

If you&#39;re talking about Trotsky expecting to see Menshewiks and Bolshewiks united in the party even in 1935...then you have to realize that this doesn&#39;t justify your conclusion that Trotsky was a menshewik.


If I&#39;m also not mistaken, the idea of permanent revolution is one which oversees a slow progression and would thus be even willing to introduce some aspects of capitalism in order to develop into socialism. Return of the NEP with a larger open market for foodstuffs? Growth of peasant farms and possibly private industry alongside state regulation and state run industry?

No wrong again...the theory of permanent revolution, although starting from the viewpoint of slow progression to socialism...doesn&#39;t imply the RETURN to certain capitalist..it merely states that socialist ideas and organisational structures and introduced gradually, depending on the level of consciousness of the working class.


The problem is this, in developing a real proletariat, you have to develop a real bourgeoisie -- and don&#39;t think for a moment that there&#39;s not gonna be conflict.

And would you say...there was no real bourgeoisie in the USSR? If so, then I disagree with you on this as well.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:52 PM
Maybe so, by chance that Trotsky realized you&#39;d have to go further back before going forward. If I&#39;m not mistaken Trotsky was a Menshivik at one point. If I&#39;m also not mistaken, the idea of permanent revolution is one which oversees a slow progression and would thus be even willing to introduce some aspects of capitalism in order to develop into socialism. Return of the NEP with a larger open market for foodstuffs? Growth of peasant farms and possibly private industry alongside state regulation and state run industry? These things would have been far more likely under Trotsky, and he may very well would have developed an actual proletariat.

The problem is this, in developing a real proletariat, you have to develop a real bourgeoisie -- and don&#39;t think for a moment that there&#39;s not gonna be conflict. That said, another thing you would have seen with Trotsky was another civil war.

Good luck USSR, you were doomed from the start. May you rest in peace.
I think you&#39;re confusing Trotsky with Bukharin, the leading theorist on the the Right of the party. He supported the NEP and disagreed with rapid industrialisation, which was put forward by Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev. Yes Trotsky was a Menshevik, but he agreed with Lenin that they shouldn&#39;t work with the Provisional government and that a small band of revolutionaries should sieze power. Although he had been a Menshevik, he had always been a Bolshevik at heart lol.

Permanent revolution meant revolutions happening around the world, not just in one country as Stalin advocated. Trotsky and Lenin believed once they had power in Russia, revolution would spread to other countries, Germany for example, and then Germany would come to Russia&#39;s aid and help industrialise it.

Trotsky had little time for the peasantry, he was concerned with industrialising Russia and building a massive proletariat. People like Bukharin, Tomsky and Rykov were more in-tune with the peasants and they believed in the small-time private industry.

I know i didn&#39;t explain it very well but hopefully you get the picture.

[NovelGentry]

Uhmm this is where you&#39;re wrong...off course there was a proletariat...it just didn&#39;t made up the majority of society.

Does 1 person constitue a class? Does 2? Does 3? If so, you&#39;re in for a hell of a lot of micro classes. Russia was in a very transitional period from feudalism to something resembling democratic capitalism. Saying that the proletariat had formed as a class is a bit off. Even those who could be considered the "bourgeoisie" maintained effectively feudal ties to their workers.

There WAS still technically czarist power (even if the military would not enforce it and the provisional government had control while he was *out of office*). This maintains that the bourgeoisie has not established itself nearly as a class, or the holders of property and thus capital -- on the basis alone that a czar is an absolute ruler, by which one could expropriate any of this property. No private property == no capital.

If you are to consider these classes, they are extremely broken classes which are not ACTUALLY in the positions we see them in under capitalism. Again.. like calling an ant-farm civilization. They might have a queen, they might build some sweet ass housing, and they might appear to have order -- but that&#39;s falling a far cry short of actual civilization.



Hmm this is new for me dry.gif ...maybe you can elaborate?

If you&#39;re talking about Trotsky expecting to see Menshewiks and Bolshewiks united in the party even in 1935...then you have to realize that this doesn&#39;t justify your conclusion that Trotsky was a menshewik.


Of every thing I&#39;ve ever read on Trotsky, it has always stated he was sided with the Mensheviks prior to 1905 I believe. If you&#39;d care to point me to something that says otherwise -- I&#39;ll gladly take that into deliberation. I&#39;ve never seen a biography of sorts or information about his life that has claimed the opposite though, and the majority I&#39;ve seen do say he was.

I wasn&#39;t there... so I&#39;m only as good as what I read, but I&#39;ve read it a lot.


No wrong again...the theory of permanent revolution, although starting from the viewpoint of slow progression to socialism...doesn&#39;t imply the RETURN to certain capitalist.

Do forgive me if I was unclear. I was not trying to say the theory actually said or even implied that one should go back to capitalism. But much like the NEP, which technically could have been seen as a step back to capitalism, which I think Lenin himself described as one step back two steps forward, I think a number of Trotsky&#39;s policies would be of this nature.

I&#39;m not defining the theory, more theorizing on what Trotsky would do to maintain the theory. In light that he disagreed with the likes of Stalin.


it merely states that socialist ideas and organisational structures and introduced gradually, depending on the level of consciousness of the working class.

And this is my point. The level of the workers was pre-capitalist, in that sense Trotsky would have, at the very least, by his own admission that this is how one should introduce socialism, have reintroduced the NEP. Again, I&#39;m not saying the theory says "employ capitalism and then progress slowly." But I wonder if Trotsky would have employed capitalist policies in order to meet that consciousness, and then progressed from there.


And would you say...there was no real bourgeoisie in the USSR? If so, then I disagree with you on this as well.

In the USSR? or Russia pre-1917? I think I explained my view on Russia pre-1917 more clearly above. The problem with assuming that the early examples of capitalist class relations implies that there is actually a class is that you&#39;re still on shaky terms. Particularly when you TECHNICALLY still have a czar.

As far as the USSR, I use petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie for lack of a better term of those who were created or allowed to remain under the NEP and the likes. As I&#39;ve said before... I see the NEP as Lenin&#39;s admittance that there does need to be some private aspect of capitalism. If I&#39;m not mistaken it allowed a simple anything beyond a foodstuffs quota or tax to be sold on a market. Stalin did a lot more in that sense in actually bringing the USSR away from capitalism. And in essence he dealt with the new petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie -- if not all of them, by chance that he ran into a war and didn&#39;t have enough time.

But we&#39;re talking about a few decades here and even less time when industrialization really kicked in. Not to mention the state itself acting as the main goto when dealing with production and distribution.

So no, in terms of what they actually are as classes, I do not believe any form of capitalist class actually developed in the USSR, at least NOT in the normal hierarchy they do in capitalism. That is bourgeoisie could never be considered the RULING class, as they still had the czar pre-1917 and the socialist state post-1917. So whether class antagonisms could ever even properly define classes the way they are opposed in capitalism is doubtful. -- let alone actually developing class consciousness from it.

[NovelGentry]

I think you&#39;re confusing Trotsky with Bukharin, the leading theorist on the the Right of the party. He supported the NEP and disagreed with rapid industrialisation, which was put forward by Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev. Yes Trotsky was a Menshevik, but he agreed with Lenin that they shouldn&#39;t work with the Provisional government and that a small band of revolutionaries should sieze power. Although he had been a Menshevik, he had always been a Bolshevik at heart lol.

Indeed this is the history I know. And if I&#39;m not mistaken he did officially side with the Bolsheviks at some point.

My goal in stating he was a Menshevik was not to show in some way that he didn&#39;t embrace Bolshevism, but to show that his advancement towards socialism would obviously be a far different process than what you saw under Stalin -- as I said in my previous post, at the LEAST with an extension of the NEP. -- maybe more.


Permanent revolution meant revolutions happening around the world, not just in one country as Stalin advocated. Trotsky and Lenin believed once they had power in Russia, revolution would spread to other countries, Germany for example, and then Germany would come to Russia&#39;s aid and help industrialise it.

Indeed this was one aspect here is another:


8. The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfilment of which is bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.

I will admit I haven&#39;t read much, but from what I understand these points go hand in hand, as his next point on the list there happesn to discuss the international aspect, and then flows into how this expells the necessity to look at whether or not a country is "mature" or "Immature."

This is to say, if the first revolution of 1917 (Frebruary was it?) was to be their democratic revolution that would have flowed into capitalism, it was but months later that they had their "socialist" one. I use that term in quotes not to imply that it wasn&#39;t socialist, but in reality the revolution in Trotsky&#39;s eyes was more than likely not about socialism. It was about seizing the power so that even the democratic revolution could be under the control of the party.

Once you seize that control, I have no doubt had it been Trotsky over Lenin, rather than Lenin at the head, that you would have seen a LOT more basic capitalist functions being put into play. Trotsky puts across that you can have a democratic revolution, and aspects of the democratic/capitalist society (including it&#39;s classes) flow into socialism. This assumes of course that there are communists/socialists in power THROUGHOUT the stages of the democratic/capitalist system -- as if there are not, there would be no conceivable way to make peaceful revolution.

My question to you is this. If the bourgeoisie is not at the top, WILL the same class distinctions occur? I&#39;m not so sure they will, because in the scope of it the bourgeoisie would be limited by governmental power... there is no flex of class consciousness in order to "overthrow their masters" -- in fact, from the perspective of the proletariat (not the party which claims to represent them) the masters in the economic field would be the same as their masters in the political field. Afterall... the government is upholding the bourgeoisies right to exploit workers. As was the case under the NEP.

You&#39;re completely destroying the normal class antagonisms and thus destroying the natural development of class consciousness among the workers, who are not proletariat simply because they are workers.


Trotsky had little time for the peasantry, he was concerned with industrialising Russia and building a massive proletariat. People like Bukharin, Tomsky and Rykov were more in-tune with the peasants and they believed in the small-time private industry.

Indeed, but he did recognize the proletariat and peasant relationship in the initial revolution. But as he pointed out, what is needed is a dictatorship of the proletariat where the peasants follow behind it, not directly along side of it. The peasantry folds into a mix of classes depending on what is granted.

With "Bread, Peace, and Land" rolling of Lenin&#39;s toungue and pen every chance he got, it&#39;s no doubt the peasant saw the revolution as bringing land to them, not only so that they could farm, but so that they could create businesses of it. And they did under the NEP -- And then Stalin crushed them -- Oh what a world&#33;

If none of this sound clear it&#39;s because the system wasn&#39;t clear. It was ROYALLY FUCKED UP. Trying to define classes in Russia between 1914 - 1950 is like trying to eat soup with a knife.

That&#39;s not to say there weren&#39;t classes, and there weren&#39;t some likenesses forming towards capitalist classes that met with their eventual opposition from Stalin anyway. However, the question of whether they defined classical class antagonisms presented by Marx is questionable and to actually call the workers the proletariat is a bit of a stretch.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:14 PM



Does 1 person constitue a class? Does 2? Does 3? If so, you&#39;re in for a hell of a lot of micro classes. Russia was in a very transitional period from feudalism to something resembling democratic capitalism. Saying that the proletariat had formed as a class is a bit off.

Whether they have formed a class or not, is not that important, is every member of the working class today, although more than at that time, really 100% looking at as being a member of one organised class and being organised accordingly?


If you are to consider these classes, they are extremely broken classes which are not ACTUALLY in the positions we see them in under capitalism.

On this I agree, of course there was no real organisation of the working class...that&#39;s why the 1905 revolution and that of 1917 were supported largely by farmers.


Of every thing I&#39;ve ever read on Trotsky, it has always stated he was sided with the Mensheviks prior to 1905 I believe. If you&#39;d care to point me to something that says otherwise -- I&#39;ll gladly take that into deliberation. I&#39;ve never seen a biography of sorts or information about his life that has claimed the opposite though, and the majority I&#39;ve seen do say he was.


This is true, but we weren&#39;t talking about the period prior to 1905...but mostly about the period prior to 1917 (and after this year). After 1905 Trotsky was no longer a Menshewik.


But much like the NEP, which technically could have been seen as a step back to capitalism, which I think Lenin himself described as one step back two steps forward, I think a number of Trotsky&#39;s policies would be of this nature.

The level of the workers was pre-capitalist, in that sense Trotsky would have, at the very least, by his own admission that this is how one should introduce socialism, have reintroduced the NEP.


I don&#39;t really consider the NEP as a step back to capitalism. It did not as a whole comprise out of socialist economics but it was a clear step towards a socialist economic system, while using some of the old capitalist ways of production.



In the USSR? or Russia pre-1917? I think I explained my view on Russia pre-1917 more clearly above. The problem with assuming that the early examples of capitalist class relations implies that there is actually a class is that you&#39;re still on shaky terms. Particularly when you TECHNICALLY still have a czar.

Sorry, I meant Russia pre-1917. But actually a capitalist class was in formation, just as there was a working class which was developing. The Netherlands still have a monarchy, although embedded within a parliamentary democracy....does this also mean the Netherland have yet to become fully capitalist?

[NovelGentry]

Whether they have formed a class or not, is not that important

Right, cause it&#39;s not like the premise of the whole thing is class struggle. So we can just forget all this class nonsense.


is every member of the working class today, although more than at that time, really 100% looking at as being a member of one organised class and being organised accordingly?

This has nothing to do with organization, and a whole lot to do with class consciousness. A disassociation of workers in varying fields with various relations ot the means of production are not a class.

Only as capitalistm advanced does the class grow, and does the class antagonisms become clearly defined. The question of petty bourgeoisie should be a lost question in itself when the proletariat has actually fully formed as a class. And while the idea may be to organize at this point, the development of the class itself is founded ONLY with the advancement of capitalism.


On this I agree, of course there was no real organisation of the working class...that&#39;s why the 1905 revolution and that of 1917 were supported largely by farmers.



In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed

At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so.

Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy;

At the least the proletariat was forming as a class -- much of the above quotes relate to the actual development of the proletariat. Combine that with the differentiations made in The Principles of Communism, and what is left of an actual proletariat, able of even being defined by realistic class antagonisms -- was at best negligable in Russia.

There were, however, plenty of peasants, handicraftsmen, manufacturing workers -- what remained in the other end of the ring was everything from the czar himself and the remnatns of feudal lordships and of course the rising aristocracy left in the wake. Indeed, much of the workers who were still present, and I do say workers -- were to become the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie itself.


This is true, but we weren&#39;t talking about the period prior to 1905...but mostly about the period prior to 1917 (and after this year). After 1905 Trotsky was no longer a Menshewik.

I wasn&#39;t trying to place it within the context of the revolution itself, but more to represent that I don&#39;t think he could be considered your normal lock stock bolshevik.


I don&#39;t really consider the NEP as a step back to capitalism. It did not as a whole comprise out of socialist economics but it was a clear step towards a socialist economic system, while using some of the old capitalist ways of production.

Even if the NEP is not to be cosnidered as such, what change would we have seen beyond that? Of course we&#39;ll never know -- but let&#39;s be a bit realistic for a minute, even if no such action was taken -- would the existing material condtions allowed him to end up in any other position except one similar to Stalin?

Seeing as the country side was marred by the land owning peasants turning petty bourgeoisie, he had similar if not exact ideas on industrialization (although I&#39;ve heard Stalin&#39;s 5 year plans actually borrowed from proposals by Trotsky *not sure on this though*). Much the same he probably would have been marred by paranoia within the party itself as Stalin would have no doubt upped the opposition.

Possibly a more International policy? Questionable with the rising fascist powers throughout Europe.

I&#39;m just not sure I see the path out for the USSR.


Sorry, I meant Russia pre-1917. But actually a capitalist class was in formation, just as there was a working class which was developing. The Netherlands still have a monarchy, although embedded within a parliamentary democracy....does this also mean the Netherland have yet to become fully capitalist?

A developing working class does not == a proletariat. There is always a working class, and possibly was a developing proletariat as I pointed out above. But even with the handful that could actually be considered proletariat in light of the rest -- you still lack anything to make them revolutionary. And if you believe like me the peasants and the remnants of the other workers CANNOT be revolutionary.

Fact of the matter is, the most revolutionary class was the bourgeoisie as it related it&#39;s class distinction to the old feudal system. But still had no class distinction as it would have related to the forming proletariat.

EDIT: I just wanted to note where I mention aristocracy above I was implying the provisional government.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:01 PM





Whether they have formed a class or not, is not that important

Right, cause it&#39;s not like the premise of the whole thing is class struggle. So we can just forget all this class nonsense.

That&#39;s not what I meant...and you know this...I have also mentioned this later on...but when you break my post in pieces the meaning is lost. What I meant was that for the existence in a class it is not principle not necessary for this class to be organised....that it needs to be organised for figthing the class struggle is true, but something entirely different than the point I was trying to make which was solely about the existence of a class.



is every member of the working class today, although more than at that time, really 100% looking at as being a member of one organised class and being organised accordingly?

This has nothing to do with organization, and a whole lot to do with class consciousness.

With this I agree.


A disassociation of workers in varying fields with various relations ot the means of production are not a class.

With this is do not for reasons stated earlier, which I&#39;m not going to repeat. Read the arguments for this view above...


Only as capitalistm advanced does the class grow, and does the class antagonisms become clearly defined. The question of petty bourgeoisie should be a lost question in itself when the proletariat has actually fully formed as a class. And while the idea may be to organize at this point, the development of the class itself is founded ONLY with the advancement of capitalism.



In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed

At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so.

Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy;

At the least the proletariat was forming as a class -- much of the above quotes relate to the actual development of the proletariat. Combine that with the differentiations made in The Principles of Communism, and what is left of an actual proletariat, able of even being defined by realistic class antagonisms -- was at best negligable in Russia.


I don&#39;t understand why you need to add this...it&#39;s not like we disagree on this point.



This is true, but we weren&#39;t talking about the period prior to 1905...but mostly about the period prior to 1917 (and after this year). After 1905 Trotsky was no longer a Menshewik.

I wasn&#39;t trying to place it within the context of the revolution itself, but more to represent that I don&#39;t think he could be considered your normal lock stock bolshevik.


Well I&#39;m not sure this is something you can state: eventually Trotsky was just as much a Bolshewik as Lenin. Trotsky also went through a process of growing consciousness before becoming a Bolshewik.



I don&#39;t really consider the NEP as a step back to capitalism. It did not as a whole comprise out of socialist economics but it was a clear step towards a socialist economic system, while using some of the old capitalist ways of production.

Even if the NEP is not to be cosnidered as such, what change would we have seen beyond that? Of course we&#39;ll never know -- but let&#39;s be a bit realistic for a minute, even if no such action was taken -- would the existing material condtions allowed him to end up in any other position except one similar to Stalin?

Seeing as the country side was marred by the land owning peasants turning petty bourgeoisie, he had similar if not exact ideas on industrialization (although I&#39;ve heard Stalin&#39;s 5 year plans actually borrowed from proposals by Trotsky *not sure on this though*). Much the same he probably would have been marred by paranoia within the party itself as Stalin would have no doubt upped the opposition.

Possibly a more International policy? Questionable with the rising fascist powers throughout Europe.

I&#39;m just not sure I see the path out for the USSR.


Indeed the objective cirsumstances of the time (the failed German revolution) would have even caused a lot of struggle for Trotsky. But whether things would have been different is difficult to say. Trotsky would at least not have surpressed revolutionary movements like Stalin did.



Sorry, I meant Russia pre-1917. But actually a capitalist class was in formation, just as there was a working class which was developing. The Netherlands still have a monarchy, although embedded within a parliamentary democracy....does this also mean the Netherland have yet to become fully capitalist?

A developing working class does not == a proletariat. There is always a working class, and possibly was a developing proletariat as I pointed out above. But even with the handful that could actually be considered proletariat in light of the rest -- you still lack anything to make them revolutionary. And if you believe like me the peasants and the remnants of the other workers CANNOT be revolutionary.

This is the point I have been trying to make all the time...although the working class is developing it&#39;s not a fully organised and conscious working class movement ready for revolution. Marx said that the working class is the most revolutionary class....but the fact that they were not strongly organised doesn&#39;t disminish their role in the october revolution&#33;


Fact of the matter is, the most revolutionary class was the bourgeoisie as it related it&#39;s class distinction to the old feudal system. But still had no class distinction as it would have related to the forming proletariat.


This was not true for 1917 and not for 1905...the people who were workers and farmers pre 1905 did the dirty work for the rising bourgeoisie...(bourgeois revolution) 1917 was a socialist revolution, with a (although not strong developed) leadership role for members of the working class.

[NovelGentry]

That&#39;s not what I meant...and you know this...I have also mentioned this later on...but when you break my post in pieces the meaning is lost. What I meant was that for the existence in a class it is not principle not necessary for this class to be organised....that it needs to be organised for figthing the class struggle is true, but something entirely different than the point I was trying to make which was solely about the existence of a class.

Agreed, but my original post never intended to say that it did have to be organized. Which is the way you seemed to direct it.


With this I agree.

Then why even bring up organization? It was you who started using this word.


With this is do not for reasons stated earlier, which I&#39;m not going to repeat. Read the arguments for this view above...

This disagreement is based on either: Your misunderstanding of what constitutes proletariat or my misunderstanding of what conditions in Russia were like between 1905 and 1917. It would be self-defeating to say I&#39;m wrong about what conditions were like.

So maybe you could point out to me the difinitive examples of proletarians which you believe or know to have existed in Russia during this time. I&#39;m always willing to be proven wrong and learn, but I suspect to actually be proven wrong before I concede.


I don&#39;t understand why you need to add this...it&#39;s not like we disagree on this point.

Well there is a difference in saying a proletariat is forming and that one exists. Which do you claim? From your original statements I was under the impression that you claimed one existed? So... where?


Well I&#39;m not sure this is something you can state: eventually Trotsky was just as much a Bolshewik as Lenin. Trotsky also went through a process of growing consciousness before becoming a Bolshewik.

Indeed, but the question is with an obvious relation to how he would have acted instead of Stalin. I&#39;m not a Stalinist, I&#39;m not a Trot, and I&#39;m not a Leninist. With that said, what we KNOW to of have happened is what Stalin did. What do you think Trotsky would have done differently while maintaining the push towards socialism -- rather than wallowing in policies with capitalist tinges?

My argument is this -- any attempt to do things differently than how Stalin did things, and I think the country would have met with a far earlier collapse. Thus, for the sake of the USSR, I feel Trotsky would have ended up in very much the same position -- regardless of whether he tried to do it in a very different way. If you are indeed Marxist, I would wonder how you can deny this given the reality of what the material conditions were.

An attempt to bring a nation to socialism from whatever the hell you want to call Russia pre-1917 would have to be met with such authority. The workers (and note, I&#39;m not saying the proletariat) -- the workers, just weren&#39;t ready. Lots of workers, little to no proletariat.

Let me ask you a few simple quesiton:

Can the proletariat develop outside of capitalism?
Was the USSR ever capitalist?
Is the proletariat alone the ONLY revolutionary class?

Here&#39;s my answer:
No
Yes
Yes

-- you can of course disagree.

But not there are insane contradictions with certain answer combinations. For example. If the proletariat cannot develop outside of capitalism, and the USSR was never capitalist, then the proletariat could not develop inside the USSR -- and what little proletariat you claim existed before the revolution would have either dissolved or died off in light of the new social structure.

Thus, the only way this broken theory can work is if the proletariat is NOT the only revolutionary class -- and you can make the likes of peasants and small time handicraftsmen revolutionary.

I&#39;ve heard statements like "Industrializaiton in the USSR was to build up a proletariat." I find these statements utterly hilarious and contradictory towards Marxism. To build up a proletariat you need a bourgeoisie -- so unless you consider the state to take the place of the bourgeoisie (at least in part) then you cannot build a proletariat. Which I do consider it under Lenin and the NEP (which is why I call it State Capitalism, or at the least a regulated Capitalism).

However, I do not consider these roles under Stalin... I think Trotsky would have realized this, and attempted to first develop some more capitalist friendly policies, but after not liking the outcome (capitalism) or falling under bourgeois opposition from the class created in these policies, I think he would have taken the vey same authoritarian route as Stalin.

Whether or not Stalin realized what he was doing was the only feasible way of doing it in line with the material conditions (that is, whether he was materially conscious) is another question, and one which I am not educated enough on Stalin himself to answer.

With that said, again, the USSR was doomed from the start.


Indeed the objective cirsumstances of the time (the failed German revolution) would have even caused a lot of struggle for Trotsky. But whether things would have been different is difficult to say.

I don&#39;t believe things would have been different, at least not in the end... maybe initially when Trotsky tried to take a different route to actually develop a proletariat. But if indeed Trotsky industrialized the same way (all state controlled -- no presentable bourgeoisie within the normal economic class structure) -- he too would have never found revolutionary, only reactionary people to continue the USSR.

The reactionary presence in the USSR which directly accounts to it&#39;s revisionist endings and it&#39;s collapse back to capitalism was not because of particular people, no matter who you threw into the leadership, the more time spent in the USSR the more likely you become to encounter non-revolutionary leadership.

If by chance Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and some of the initial party was actually communist, conscious, and revolutionary (I believe they were), they were so out of the obvious emerging capitalist society (the democratic revolutions, the growth of the provisional government, and the development of old classes into something far different). They were EXTREMELY revolutionary for their time, unfortunately, they were the only ones. And while no doubt they were extremely intelligent, I don&#39;t think any of them ever realized that in destroying the old system and what would have been it&#39;s progression into full-fledged capitalism, they were destroying the ONLY chance at subsequent revolutionary generations.

Once the initial revolutionaries died and the generaton gap grew wide enough the USSR was done with. You cannot create class consciousness and material consciousness for a class and the material conditions of a previous society within the new society -- it is simply NOT possible.


Trotsky would at least not have surpressed revolutionary movements like Stalin did.

Not likely. Notice Stalin didn&#39;t get really paranoid until later -- the brunt of his "horrifying reign of terror" as some would like to call the reality of the situation, undeniably obvious due to material conditions, did not actually reach full swing until a decade after Lenin&#39;s death. It was slow moving, and progressively got worse as materially the goal of socialism got further and further away from becoming possible.

So Stalin no doubt thought it was "slipping away" -- and took drastic measures to try and protect it. So there are two possibilities here:

1) Stalin was conscious of WHY it was failing (the material reality) and ignored it and tried to push on any way -- getting stricter and stricter hoping with total authoritarianism he could somehow FORCE people into socialism.

2) Stalin was not conscios of why it was failing and attributed it directly to people and ideological splits rather than material reality.

Both are quite pathetic. But this is easy to say for me after the fact... No doubt we would have all made the very same mistakes.


This is the point I have been trying to make all the time...although the working class is developing it&#39;s not a fully organised and conscious working class movement ready for revolution. Marx said that the working class is the most revolutionary class....but the fact that they were not strongly organised doesn&#39;t disminish their role in the october revolution&#33;

No, Marx and Engels said the proletariat was the most revolutionary class. WORKING CLASS DOES NOT EQUAL PROLETARIAT.


— 3 —
Proletarians, then, have not always existed?

No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions. --Frederick Engels 1847 (The Principles of Communism)

This is not me trying to flex my understanding of Marxism or trying to prove intellectual superiority, but you MUST understand this, and you must grasp the differences. We all must, and as much as I can explain these differences, and write them down, and seriously set them fourth when I contemplate them, I myself cannot claim to think along these lines on a day to day basis. I still say working class more often than not when I mean proletariat -- but I DO realize the difference.

If or course you&#39;re not a Marxist and you don&#39;t give a damn about what he or Engels said... I apologize.


This was not true for 1917 and not for 1905...the people who were workers and farmers pre 1905 did the dirty work for the rising bourgeoisie...(bourgeois revolution) 1917 was a socialist revolution, with a (although not strong developed) leadership role for members of the working class.

I have no doubt about the distinctions between the two revolutions (although I think it&#39;s difficult to call February 1917 socialist). My distinction is whether or not the actual classes had developed. Indeed the bourgeoisie had their revolution, and only 12 years later you suspect a revolutionary proletariat?

Again, I&#39;d like answer to those simple questions above and maybe if you can realize some of us do make a distinction between working class and proletariat... then it will probably help a lot in understanding what I&#39;m saying.

There was a working class -- and even if the working class killed billions of people for their own "freedom" -- they were not revolutionary. They supported and took part in revolution -- but within the context of their actual social constructs, their mindset was reactionary. Within the context of these social constructs, just the same, the bourgeoisie were still revolutionary. My original statement remains -- The bourgeoisie in Russia in 1917 was the most revolutionary class.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:07 AM




There was a working class -- and even if the working class killed billions of people for their own "freedom" -- they were not revolutionary. They supported and took part in revolution -- but within the context of their actual social constructs, their mindset was reactionary.

Well there is a difference in saying a proletariat is forming and that one exists. Which do you claim? From your original statements I was under the impression that you claimed one existed? So... where?


I never claimed there was a fully developed proletariat....i just claimed it was developing (before 1917 that is).


My argument is this -- any attempt to do things differently than how Stalin did things, and I think the country would have met with a far earlier collapse. Thus, for the sake of the USSR, I feel Trotsky would have ended up in very much the same position -- regardless of whether he tried to do it in a very different way. If you are indeed Marxist, I would wonder how you can deny this given the reality of what the material conditions were.


I have said that Trotsky would probably have been in the same position, because of the failed German revolution. But I believe Trotsky would not have been surpressing revolutionary movements of workers, like Stalin did.



Let me ask you a few simple quesiton:

Can the proletariat develop outside of capitalism?
Was the USSR ever capitalist?
Is the proletariat alone the ONLY revolutionary class?

Here&#39;s my answer:

No
Yes
Yes

-- you can of course disagree.

But not there are insane contradictions with certain answer combinations. For example. If the proletariat cannot develop outside of capitalism, and the USSR was never capitalist, then the proletariat could not develop inside the USSR -- and what little proletariat you claim existed before the revolution would have either dissolved or died off in light of the new social structure.

Thus, the only way this broken theory can work is if the proletariat is NOT the only revolutionary class -- and you can make the likes of peasants and small time handicraftsmen revolutionary.



My answers:

Yes (when production requires this)
No
Yes

I don&#39;t agree with your conclusion that any other answer than yours would lead to saying that the proletariat is not the only revolutionary class. I think the revolution was supported by enough workers to give them a reasonably influence within this revolution and therefore they were the revolutionary force.

Although peasants are not workers, small handcraftsmen (which do not own means of production) are or can be.



I don&#39;t believe things would have been different, at least not in the end... maybe initially when Trotsky tried to take a different route to actually develop a proletariat. But if indeed Trotsky industrialized the same way (all state controlled -- no presentable bourgeoisie within the normal economic class structure) -- he too would have never found revolutionary, only reactionary people to continue the USSR.

Once the initial revolutionaries died and the generaton gap grew wide enough the USSR was done with. You cannot create class consciousness and material consciousness for a class and the material conditions of a previous society within the new society -- it is simply NOT possible.


I guess things could have been different....Trotsky would have been trying to create sectors of productions for which workers would have been necessary....they would off course organise themselves, because there had already been a raise of consciousness before the revolution that a developing working class (proletariat is made up of members of working class) needs organisation.


No, Marx and Engels said the proletariat was the most revolutionary class. WORKING CLASS DOES NOT EQUAL PROLETARIAT.


— 3 —
Proletarians, then, have not always existed?

No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions. --Frederick Engels 1847 (The Principles of Communism)

This is not me trying to flex my understanding of Marxism or trying to prove intellectual superiority, but you MUST understand this, and you must grasp the differences. We all must, and as much as I can explain these differences, and write them down, and seriously set them fourth when I contemplate them, I myself cannot claim to think along these lines on a day to day basis. I still say working class more often than not when I mean proletariat -- but I DO realize the difference.

If or course you&#39;re not a Marxist and you don&#39;t give a damn about what he or Engels said... I apologize.


I&#39;m aware of the difference, I&#39;m a Marxist (don&#39;t use these cheap tactics in discussions to damage other people) but still I don&#39;t agree with you on this:


Within the context of these social constructs, just the same, the bourgeoisie were still revolutionary. My original statement remains -- The bourgeoisie in Russia in 1917 was the most revolutionary class.

Because the revolution of 1917 was not a bourgeois revolution&#33;

[NovelGentry]

I never claimed there was a fully developed proletariat....i just claimed it was developing (before 1917 that is).

Actually you claimed it existed. And as per my oriignal point, there is a difference between forming and actually existing. Whether or not what could actually be considered a proletariat came into existence before 1917 doesn&#39;t matter much, as if it did, it was negligable at best.


I have said that Trotsky would probably have been in the same position, because of the failed German revolution. But I believe Trotsky would not have been surpressing revolutionary movements of workers, like Stalin did.

And again, I believe he would be, for reasons already stated. The quote that you respond to with this was aimed at ALL aspects of doing things the same. Not just changes in response to "losing Germany" so to speak.


My answers:

Yes (when production requires this)
No
Yes


But the only known mode of production that requires such a class is capitalism. Fedualism does not require such a class, nor can one form under the feudal mode of production -- when your mode of production changes, so does your economic distinction.


I don&#39;t agree with your conclusion that any other answer than yours would lead to saying that the proletariat is not the only revolutionary class. I think the revolution was supported by enough workers to give them a reasonably influence within this revolution and therefore they were the revolutionary force.


No, but I wasn&#39;t assuming you&#39;d go and say something like "the proletariat can exist outside of capitalism" and then present a conditional which actually requires the system to be capitalism -- as if that was a valid way to escape the validity of my answer. It wasn&#39;t (see: my response directly before this one).


Although peasants are not workers, small handcraftsmen (which do not own means of production) are or can be.

Peasants are workers... so are small handicraftsmen.... so are other forms of merchant workers... even slaves are workers... one thing all of these are not: Proletarians.

Again, I&#39;m not denying that there was a working class, in that there was a class of peole composed of workers. I&#39;m denying that there was a proletariat.


I guess things could have been different....Trotsky would have been trying to create sectors of productions for which workers would have been necessary....they would off course organise themselves, because there had already been a raise of consciousness before the revolution that a developing working class (proletariat is made up of members of working class) needs organisation.

Yes, but again, only initially. You can only get away with so much before material reality comes back to haunt you and you HAVE to cope. Stalin in essence coped from the start -- and again, whether he was conscious or unconscious is difficult for me to say.


Because the revolution of 1917 was not a bourgeois revolution&#33;

This is what I call the "instant revolutionary." The idea that the only condition of being revolutionary is that you take part in revolution, regardless of your level of consciousness and regardless of whether you are progressive or reactionary.

Just because there was a revolution that was NOT handled by the bourgeoisie does not discredit them as the most revolutionary class. On the condition that the revolution of 1917 was relatively light in actual popular uprising -- the work itself was primarily assumed by the vanguard (who was indeed revolutionary). Unfortunately a vanguard does not constitute a class... nor did the myriad of worker types constitute a proletariat, to which you agreed above is the ONLY revolutionary class (assuming the context of capitalism).

Here is where my distinctions come in: Can we look at Russia and say flat out that it was capitalism? -- I do not believe so, it was still something of a mixed economy which held some of the old feudal ties (hence why you still had a peasant majority). Thus we cannot even assume the context of capitalism alone, but we have to also assume the context of feudalism, in which the bourgeoisie REMAINS the most revolutionary class. This point is evaded by calling the ensuing battle between bourgeois and so-hoped proletariat powers a civil war.

Rather than recognize that there is still revolutionary consciousness within the bourgeoisie it is pretended that they are now simply being "reactionary." Strangely, from bourgeois revolution to socialist revolution to civil war only happens within a range of a single generation. To the bourgeoisie of Russia, there was nothing reactionary about their beliefs... they could still remember feudalism.

There is an overall feeling of distortion of Marxist principles in Leninism -- and whether or not you are a Leninist, you seem to uphold them. Call this a petty attack on your intellect or whatever you will, but this is not meant to personally attack your intelligence.

It is not an argument I can concede while maintaing what I feel is a proper interpretation of Marxism. You are free to say you disagree with my interpretation, and that is fine because I am more than willing to disagree with yours.

[viva le revolution]

The only way to properly overthrow capitalism is through mass unrest.otherwise only a selected few have a say in the running of the new peoples&#39; state, which technically is what capitalism and imperialism are&#33; a coup D&#39;etat is simply nothing more than allowing people to choose what chains to be bound in&#33;
A mass people&#39;s revolution is the only way to eliminate capitalist and imperialist tendencies in society&#33;What we need is a state giving people the freedom to talk but rejecting capitalist values of social stratification through wealth and class structures.
LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION&#33;