Gaining political power

[anomaly]

Comrades, I ask for your opiions: what means do you propose to gain political power? Should we use a large vanguard party or some alliance of smaller parties. If we choose the latter, then what of after the revolution? Will these parties not just then fiercely compete for political power, setting the movement back? In addition, how many of you are in favor of a one party state, if representatives with slightly different ideologies and from separate divisions from within the party were to run against each other? With a one party state, progress and government action would be swift. If we can create divisions to whatever party we choose, perhaps a socialist party or my Anti-Capitalist Party, democracy could exist even while using a one party model. I look forward to viewing your opinions.

[Clarksist]

A vanguard party = facilitation for dictatorship.

Worker unions and councils. De-centralize power, don't monopolize it. Divisions to a party would be, in effect, multiple parties just very similar, which takes away options.

Diversity under communism, not generic off-shoots.

[More Fire for the People]

Political power flows out of the barrel of a gun.

As for the state, the state would be based on a "no party system" and based on democratic centralism.

The state would ensure economic planning and standards (macromanagement), while labor unions will act as the military and micromanage the economy.

[codyvo]

I think that the best way to get political support is to unite all the smaller third parties so maybe we can get some political representation. All of our petty disputes can be decided on after we take control, when all the parties can split. Then the people can decide what they want, instead of the revolutionary elite deciding for them, we can't have a one party system or like Clarksist said we'll be regressing like communisms of the past.

[anomaly]

Yes, I rather like codvo's idea of temporary unification and then the setting up of a multi-party system of anti-capitalist parties. I despise the two party system, and do not wish to defeat it. I think that perhaps if the capitalists get too strong, however, the anticapitalist parties may temporarily have to politically unite to defeat this common threat. hopefully, though, we can get rid of capitalist parties, just as the USA has successfully gotten rid of anti-capitalist parties. Yes, a multiparty system sounds good.

Rodmutter-it may flow out of the barrel of a gun in 3rd world countries, and if you strongly believe what you have written I suggest you join a guerrilla regiment in one of these countires, but in Europe political power most certainly will not flow from the barrel of a gun. Alos, your economic system seems incredibly vague. I much prefer my bureacratic system, which is similar to yours, just more detailed.

Clarksist-you are aware that we must struggle for socialism now, not communism, arne't you? Communism will evolve out of world socialism, but it cannot evolve from capitalism.

[TC]

Any movement or party or individual can gain political power when they have more money, a better army, or vastly greater popular support the government...or the ability to rapidly disable the government so that it doesn't have a chance to activate its money/army/support.

There is no particular formula that can get that kindof power abstractly, different material conditoins, different countries, different times, different political atmospheres, require different strategies...and groups with different types of existing power might choose different tactics for the same situation.

For instance in Venezuela, Chavez tried a violent revolution when he had some military support, then he tried a 'reformist' democratic takeover when he had political support...which will probably make the country the first transition between capitalism to socialism without a violent revolution...likewise the counter-revolutionaries tried to overthrow the government with force, and when it failed they tried to use their money to do it economically...

...anyways i just think saying in the abstract "a big vanguard party is the way to have revolutions" or "A popular front coalition is the way to take power" or "People's war is the only way to take power" is just silly, artificially limiting, and ignores the "facts on the ground" so to speak.

[redstar2000]

I confess that I grow weary of these stale formulas and honestly wonder what purpose is served by endlessly debating their "merits".

1. In some fashion, we will attain power by winning a bourgeois "election".

Verdict of history: bourgeois "elections" are not "fair" and "honest" for us. It will never happen.

2. A small vanguard party will "organize" and "lead" a massive insurrection.

Verdict of history: only worked once (in Russia) and led to despotism. Has never had any significant appeal for the "western" working class at all.

3. A small vanguard party will "organize" and "lead" a "protracted people's war" based on the peasantry.

Verdict of history: has worked in several "third world" countries and is still in use today. Unfortunately, has also only resulted in despotism. And does not apply in the "west" where a landless peasantry no longer exists.

---------------------------

There is a fourth option, of course -- a spontaneous uprising of the working class that creates its own organs of power while destroying the old capitalist organs of power. The verdict of history is mixed -- these attempts were sometimes able to set up functioning societies but ended up being militarily defeated.

I think the fourth option is clearly superior to the others and worth exploring.

But I also think that this question evades our current responsibility as conscious revolutionaries.

What we need now is more resistance to capitalism. How can we get more ordinary working people (and even middle-class people) to stand up in a stronger and more militant way against the capitalist system?

Telling people to "vote for socialism" or "join the real party of Lenin" simply isn't going to cut it. At least it never has and I see nothing to indicate any change in that regard.

I don't have an answer to this quandary...and I don't think anyone does. But if we don't figure out some answers...then the question of "taking power" will always be "academic".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[KptnKrill]

"power" is for fascists and marxists. It implies a hierarchy. This is unacceptable.

[anomaly]

The purpose of this discussion is to come up with ways to take power, redstar. It certainly isn't meaningless, and in fact it is the most important discussion we can have. While a 'spontaneous uprising' (its not going to be spontaneous, a violent revolution will have a definite leader and plan. No revolution is spontaneous), as you call it, may work in poorer countries of the world, this idea ignores the fact that we must gain political power in some rich, industrialized country. Again, what I offer is no theory. I suggest political revolution through temporary unification in Europe, and political and/or violent revolution in poor countries of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The simple rejection of political action because 'they won't allow it' wastes a valuable adavantage that we have: most rich capitalist countries have citizens who value democracy. If the government does not want our democratic victory and fights against it, it only works to our advantage. No, this is not the problem, redstar. The problem is getting the numbers to do this. We must form a political alliance and also create some sort of education system in these richer countries. With this political alliance we must have council leadership to ensure that it does not regress to tyranny after power is taken.

In short, tragicclown is absolutely right, there are several ways of taking power, and denying the possibility of one of these ways, as you do redstar, is not helping us. In some cases, violent revolution is needed, in others, politcal revolution. Simply choosing one and denying the possibility of the other simply isn't intelligible, nor will it lead to a socialist state. I have given you my ideas on how power can best be attained in certain areas of the lgobe. While I obviously think I'm correct, these ideas are not concrete. What is, however, quite clear is that the radical left must begin to form alliances now. We must temporarily stop this bickering among ideologies, and concentrate all of our powers on creating a socialist state and, ultimately, destroying capitalism.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:21 AM
"power" is for fascists and marxists. It implies a hierarchy. This is unacceptable.
You're not a Marxist? If you seek no power, how do you intend to change the world in any meaningful way? also, it is not wise to group fascists and Marxists ever, so please refrain from doing so in the future.

[NovelGentry]

"power" is for fascists and marxists.

AHAHAHAH

No doubt they're one in the same too, eh?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:07 AM

"power" is for fascists and marxists.

AHAHAHAH

No doubt they're one in the same too, eh?
Novel, have you any idea the author's background, there? I mean, is he an anarchist, or what? Confusing fascists wiht Marxists, that is a rather huge error..

[TC]

1. In some fashion, we will attain power by winning a bourgeois "election".

Verdict of history: bourgeois "elections" are not "fair" and "honest" for us. It will never happen.

Its worked so far in Venezuela and Belarus. There was a socialist government in chile that came to power through "bourgeois" election that lasted for 3 years, which is i think generally considered a failure by Communist standards, but it should be considered a triumphant success by Anarchist standards because it was on a vastly larger scale and lasted longer then any Anarchist revolution of your "Fourth option." It is pure dogma to say that workers can't come to power through elections, if the circumstances are right and the ruling class is isolated politically...and it makes no sense because Allende who is often cited as the only historical case of a marxist coming to power through elections, out did all Anarchist accomplishments, so its historically a more viable option then Anarchy provides.




2. A small vanguard party will "organize" and "lead" a massive insurrection.

Verdict of history: only worked once (in Russia) and led to despotism. Has never had any significant appeal for the "western" working class at all.

3. A small vanguard party will "organize" and "lead" a "protracted people's war" based on the peasantry.

Verdict of history: has worked in several "third world" countries and is still in use today. Unfortunately, has also only resulted in despotism. And does not apply in the "west" where a landless peasantry no longer exists.


Pronouncing a "vertict of history" as if you were making an empirical statement when really you're making a symantec arguement makes no sense in this context. You make it a self fulfilling prophecy because you define all states as "despotisms." In fact, for a revolution to not "result in despotism", it would have to be militarily defeated, which curiously enough, also leads to "despotism." :-p.



There is a fourth option, of course -- a spontaneous uprising of the working class that creates its own organs of power while destroying the old capitalist organs of power.


People aren't bees or ants that spontaniously react to threats by swarming and stinging...Mass behavior, especially aggressive behavior, is always organized by someone or some group, its never spontanious. Do you think its possible that you might just wake up one morning and spontaniously think "Today, i'm going to risk my life in a genuine attempt to violently overthrow the government", and mean it? Probably not. Now what are the chances that not just you, but thousands of other people have the same spontanious impulse, at the same time?

Telling a bunch of kids to be in seattle dressed the same way to start smashing stuff up between such and such a date, is poorly organized, the organizers don't take credit for getting the word out, but its still organized on that level its not spontanious, it would never spontaniously occur to anyone to do such a thing. In fact i think its safe to say that in anyone sane, violent and/or risky behavior are never spontanious, they have to be provoked by something, and when you provoke a ton of people to do the same risky behavior, thats called organizing them. If you want to do something revolutionary, or for that matter, if you want to get a bunch of people to do something that generally goes against their nature (say, putting themselves in harms way) the choice isnt' between organization and spontaneity, its between effective organization and really ineffective, wasteful, immature, anonymous organization...


The verdict of history is mixed -- these attempts were sometimes able to set up functioning societies but ended up being militarily defeated.


The three incidents that Anarchists typically site as examples of this (nevermind the fact that none of them were "spontanious uprisings") Paris 1871, Kronstadt 1921, and
parts of Spain in the late 1930s (ignoring the fact that Anarchists were just a small part of the Republican forces, who were shielded from the Fascists by the Republican *government* with Soviet weapons and "stalinist" Comintern troops) resulted in a bourgeois republic, a fascist regime, and a marxist-leninist workers state, respectively. Is that not all "resulting in despotism" in your opinion?




But I also think that this question evades our current responsibility as conscious revolutionaries.

I think that waiting for a "spontanious uprising" evades all responsibility for making a revolution, or for resisting capitalism. Basically if only a "spontanious uprising" works for you, you have the luxery of waiting for the revolution to just 'happen.'


then the question of "taking power" will always be "academic"

Well its purely academic if you keep telling yourself that any revolution that could be accomplished in the real world leads to "despotism" and "good" revolutions just kinda happen, all by themselves, spontaniously, as if through some mystical process that you don't feel a need to undertand well enough to say anything practical about it.

[farleft]

Communism can only come about via armed struggle.

Political power does come from the barrel of a gun.

Bourgeois elections will never bring about communism.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:07 AM

"power" is for fascists and marxists.

AHAHAHAH

No doubt they're one in the same too, eh?
imv. Close enough. :)

@anomaly:
How can you confuse two things when they are one in the same ;)
And yes I'm an anarchist.

[NovelGentry]

imv. Close enough.

I have a feeling you've never even bothered to read much of what Marx had to say.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:20 PM
As for the state, the state would be based on a "no party system" and based on democratic centralism.
A no party system ? Care to elaborate ? That just sounds like a stateless society. But you can't have a stateless society based on "democratic centralism". You are familiar with the origins of democratic centralism ? It's rather oxymoronic.


The state would ensure economic planning and standards (macromanagement), while labor unions will act as the military and micromanage the economy.

The final stage of communism will mean no state, so i hope you're talking about socialism.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:59 PM

imv. Close enough.

I have a feeling you've never even bothered to read much of what Marx had to say.
Quite the contrary actually. There was a while where I was into marxist stuff.

But I now see that marxism is fundementally flawed (in more than one aspect). It's done more harm to people than good, and quite frankly I'm tired of people saying "communist" but really meaning "marxist". ;)

[NovelGentry]

But I now see that marxism is fundementally flawed (in more than one aspect). It's done more harm to people than good, and quite frankly I'm tired of people saying "communist" but really meaning "marxist".

Well maybe you should get tired of yourself saying Marxist and really meaning Leninist. ;)

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:38 PM
Well maybe you should get tired of yourself saying Marxist and really meaning Leninist. ;)
Why should I return a courtesy others don't grant me?
You like my antilenin?

[More Fire for the People]

A no party system ? Care to elaborate ? That just sounds like a stateless society. But you can't have a stateless society based on "democratic centralism". You are familiar with the origins of democratic centralism ? It's rather oxymoronic.

A no party system is based on the election of independent workers for representation, rather than having a single party control things and lead to a bureaucracy of a new class or allowing the existence of capitalist parties.

Democratic centralism is often misunderstood, it is opposition to federalism.
It means that communities would elect leaders to a dual legsilative-executive body, rather than communities electing governments to states, and states electing a federal government.

I disagree with the majority of the "centralist" aspect of it, but I do believe that power should be nearly equally decentralized and centralized between accountable federal and communal governments.


The final stage of communism will mean no state, so i hope you're talking about socialism.

Yes, I am.

[redstar2000]

Back into the muck, eh? :o


Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)...it's not going to be spontaneous, a violent revolution will have a definite leader and plan. No revolution is spontaneous...[/b]

Petrograd, February, 1917.

No leader, no plan,...and no Czar! :D


The simple rejection of political action because 'they won't allow it' wastes a valuable advantage that we have: most rich capitalist countries have citizens who value democracy.

Yes...very foolish of them. Like you, they imagine that they live in a "democracy" where they could elect "anyone they wished."

That was an understandable illusion before 1914...but not since. A revolutionary party has never come to power as a consequence of winning a capitalist election and I see no reason to think it ever will happen.

A ruling class does not permit itself to be "voted" out of power.

Ever.


TragicClown
It's worked so far in Venezuela and Belarus.

Wha???

Chavez is, at best, a social democrat. Belarus is a corrupt despotism.

What do those places have to do with us?


There was a socialist government in Chile that came to power through "bourgeois" election...

A left bourgeois reformist government.

What's that have to do with us?


It is pure dogma to say that workers can't come to power through elections, if the circumstances are right and the ruling class is isolated politically...

Dogma it may well be...it just happens also to be the fucking truth.

If the ruling class is "isolated politically", they will declare a "state of national emergency" and cancel the elections.


Allende who is often cited as the only historical case of a marxist coming to power through elections, out did all Anarchist accomplishments, so it's historically a more viable option then Anarchy provides.

Horseshit!

The working class in Barcelona probably accomplished more in a week than Allende (who was not "a marxist") would have achieved had he lived to be 100!


You make it a self-fulfilling prophecy because you define all states as "despotisms."

The Paris Commune was not a despotism. It's not easy to do, but a "quasi-state" can emerge from a "leaderless" and "unplanned" revolution that does not result in despotism.


Mass behavior, especially aggressive behavior, is always organized by someone or some group, it's never spontaneous.

In a literal sense, that's quite true. But I think you know what's being discussed here -- can a small group "plan" and "lead" a proletarian revolution in the "west"?

The answer is no.


The three incidents that Anarchists typically cite as examples of this...resulted in a bourgeois republic, a fascist regime, and a marxist-leninist workers state, respectively.

So?


Is that not all "resulting in despotism" in your opinion?

Sure. If you lose and the bad guys win, then despotism is a highly probable outcome.

Is that to mean that we should not try for what we really want because we "might lose" and end up with despotism?

My point is that Leninism ends up in despotism as a consequence of victory, not defeat!


Basically if only a "spontaneous uprising" works for you, you have the luxury of waiting for the revolution to just 'happen.'

You're in the same boat, kiddo! Whenever the Leninist party has tried to "jump out in front" and "organize" a revolution, you've fallen flat on your ass!

You are "waiting" for a spontaneous revolutionary upheaval just like me.

The difference is that you want to "capture it" and "ride it into office".

And I'm telling people not to allow that to happen!


Well it's purely academic if you keep telling yourself that any revolution that could be accomplished in the real world leads to "despotism" and "good" revolutions just kinda happen, all by themselves, spontaneously, as if through some mystical process that you don't feel a need to understand well enough to say anything practical about it.

The phenomenon of real world uprisings is very complicated and we don't have a real understanding of why they happen in one place and not another or at one time and not another time.

The Leninist conceit that "they, and only they, know how to do it" is certainly one of their most irritating characteristics...as it's obvious that they don't know crap.

Maoists do know something about how to organize successful peasant revolutions...but that's no help for us.

Social democrats can win elections (occasionally)...but that's no help for us either. They not only cannot "build socialism"...they end up, sooner or later, as rotten and corrupt as any conservative party.

Spontaneous proletarian insurrection is the only option that gives us a chance at what we really want.

All the rest of that 20th century trash is useless!

Unless, of course, despotism is what you really want.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

Originally posted by KptnKrill+Jun 6 2005, 12:39 PM--> (KptnKrill @ Jun 6 2005, 12:39 PM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 05:07 AM

"power" is for fascists and marxists.

AHAHAHAH

No doubt they're one in the same too, eh?
imv. Close enough. :)

@anomaly:
How can you confuse two things when they are one in the same ;)
And yes I'm an anarchist. [/b]
The question is, are you a comrade or an enemy of the socialist cause? That is, are you in favor or the replacement of capitalism with socialism, or are you for immediate anarchism (even though that's impossible...).

[anomaly]

Redstar, what exactly do you mean by 'spontaneous proletarian insurrection'? The proletariat, which has been mostly loyal to the capitalist system for nearly 400 years, will simply turn on their capitalist masters? No, they will not. Some sort of plan is needed. No revolution is spontaneous. And I do not think you realize that in the question of gaining power, the answer is neither black nor white, but rather a distict shade of grey. Dismissing the possibilty of political revolution is, as they say, not giving peace a chance. No doubt, some times peace is simply an unacceptable alternative, but other times violent revolution is an unacceptable alternative. Certain situations call for different measures.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
Redstar, what exactly do you mean by 'spontaneous proletarian insurrection'?

There's no "hidden significance" in those words -- I mean just what they say.

For reasons unclear to us, a small proletarian insurrection (in one city or even one neighborhood or one workplace) sets off a storm which may grow so powerful that the old social order is simply swept away. There are lots of plans, but no PLAN. There are lots of individual leaders, but no LEADER.

One reason that this may happen so unexpectedly is that we have no tools to perceive the "invisible weaknesses" of the old order. It "looks" as strong and powerful as it ever did...but it really isn't. It's a shell, a collection of stage-settings that no longer have any material strength behind them...they topple and crash with a single blow.

You must have heard that famous story about Lenin speaking to the young comrades in Switzerland...how he said "we older comrades may not live to see the revolution". When was it, November or December of 1916? The 300-year-old Romanov dynasty had but a few weeks of life remaining!

That is not to say that conscious revolutionaries have no role to play up to that point. It is our responsibility to educate people with revolutionary ideas; it is part of our task to encourage and participate in popular resistance to the despotism of capital.

We distribute as much firewood as we can and nurture every tiny spark of rebellion that we find...because we don't know which tiny spark will explode everything.

All we know is that sometimes...it happens. :)


Dismissing the possibility of political revolution is, as they say, not giving peace a chance.

Peace has no chance.

It never did. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[kurt]

We distribute as much firewood as we can and nurture every tiny spark of rebellion that we find...because we don't know which tiny spark will explode everything.
I think that pretty much sums up our task right there. We must simply spread revolutionary ideas, and show the true nature of capital into every corner we can find. We must sow the seeds for revolution, so that when the spark finally catches fire, it will spread like wildfire and sweep up the old social order.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 7 2005, 05:01 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 7 2005, 05:01 AM)
anomaly
Redstar, what exactly do you mean by 'spontaneous proletarian insurrection'?

There's no "hidden significance" in those words -- I mean just what they say.

For reasons unclear to us, a small proletarian insurrection (in one city or even one neighborhood or one workplace) sets off a storm which may grow so powerful that the old social order is simply swept away. There are lots of plans, but no PLAN. There are lots of individual leaders, but no LEADER.

One reason that this may happen so unexpectedly is that we have no tools to perceive the "invisible weaknesses" of the old order. It "looks" as strong and powerful as it ever did...but it really isn't. It's a shell, a collection of stage-settings that no longer have any material strength behind them...they topple and crash with a single blow.

You must have heard that famous story about Lenin speaking to the young comrades in Switzerland...how he said "we older comrades may not live to see the revolution". When was it, November or December of 1916? The 300-year-old Romanov dynasty had but a few weeks of life remaining!

That is not to say that conscious revolutionaries have no role to play up to that point. It is our responsibility to educate people with revolutionary ideas; it is part of our task to encourage and participate in popular resistance to the despotism of capital.

We distribute as much firewood as we can and nurture every tiny spark of rebellion that we find...because we don't know which tiny spark will explode everything.

All we know is that sometimes...it happens. :)


Dismissing the possibility of political revolution is, as they say, not giving peace a chance.

Peace has no chance.

It never did. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
So would this revolution take place worldwide? Come to your senses, man, there will be no instant transition from capitalism to communism through revolution. It will likely be a rather long process of establishing world socialism in order to advance to communism. How these socialist revolutions will come about is up to debate. I've submitted what I think previously, that we can use democracy in some nations (rich capitalist ones) but in others we'll need a revolutionary force and violent revolution (poorer countries of the world) and soemtimes a combination of the two. But you seem to imply, comrade, that some small revolution will simply ignite a massive communist revolution, whcih will result in the destruction of capital. World revolution is not too likely, but smaller scale socialist revolutions are extremely likely. But, that being said, you ideas, now that you've explained it a bit, don't seem so crazy, as long as your talking about socialist revolution...are you?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
So would this revolution take place worldwide?

I doubt it.

What I do expect is that Western Europe will experience such a proletarian upheaval more or less "all at once"...France will be "first" followed quickly (I hope) by Italy and Germany -- and then the smaller countries. I am uncertain about the U.K. -- it depends on how much it has been integrated into the American Empire. (And it's not impossible that Eastern Europe could be drawn in as well.)

After that, much depends on the world-wide reaction to that...will people in Southeast Asia (Japan) or North America (Canada & Mexico) or South America (Brazil) be inspired to do likewise?

And my crystal ball is not clear enough to predict that.


Come to your senses, man, there will be no instant transition from capitalism to communism through revolution.

There are no such things as "instant transitions".

But "socialism" as it has been traditionally conceived is probably obsolete...and that is even more likely to be the case by the second half of this century.

Think Paris Commune or anarchist Barcelona -- not the dead ends like the USSR or China.


But, that being said, you ideas, now that you've explained it a bit, don't seem so crazy, as long as your talking about socialist revolution...are you?

No.

And I'm not really surprised when people initially say my ideas are "crazy"...I'm trashing the whole Leninist paradigm and this is bound to be somewhat "shocking".

I no longer see any material reason why the advanced capitalist countries cannot proceed to the immediate construction of communist societies...understanding that it may take several decades or even somewhat longer to "get it right".

The point being that we attempt to achieve what we really want rather than merely settle for what the ideologues of the last century told us "was all that we could have".

Screw that!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Holocaustpulp]

(Note - this is all in a socialist pretense)

I believe there does need to be an alliance of parties in order to form an effective governing system. Hence, the socialist movement would encompass many facets that would be willing to carry out Marxism (not distortions or bourgeois misinterpreataions of) , and this alone denotes a wide social base that is needed for revolution.

In order to avoid dictatorship, governing forces would be democratically determined and would function according to the approval of soviet-like worker's organizations (which would convene in congresses - this would act as a balance, so to speak). The government itself could not be a centralized force with wide power nor could it be a tiresome bureaucracy - it should have loose authority but exhibit no inevitable absolutes. And the government should also stage elections despite party affiliations as this coincides with the whole idea of a broad movement.

- Holocaustpulp

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 8 2005, 03:05 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 8 2005, 03:05 PM)
anomaly
So would this revolution take place worldwide?

I doubt it.

What I do expect is that Western Europe will experience such a proletarian upheaval more or less "all at once"...France will be "first" followed quickly (I hope) by Italy and Germany -- and then the smaller countries. I am uncertain about the U.K. -- it depends on how much it has been integrated into the American Empire. (And it's not impossible that Eastern Europe could be drawn in as well.)

After that, much depends on the world-wide reaction to that...will people in Southeast Asia (Japan) or North America (Canada & Mexico) or South America (Brazil) be inspired to do likewise?

And my crystal ball is not clear enough to predict that.


Come to your senses, man, there will be no instant transition from capitalism to communism through revolution.

There are no such things as "instant transitions".

But "socialism" as it has been traditionally conceived is probably obsolete...and that is even more likely to be the case by the second half of this century.

Think Paris Commune or anarchist Barcelona -- not the dead ends like the USSR or China.


But, that being said, you ideas, now that you've explained it a bit, don't seem so crazy, as long as your talking about socialist revolution...are you?

No.

And I'm not really surprised when people initially say my ideas are "crazy"...I'm trashing the whole Leninist paradigm and this is bound to be somewhat "shocking".

I no longer see any material reason why the advanced capitalist countries cannot proceed to the immediate construction of communist societies...understanding that it may take several decades or even somewhat longer to "get it right".

The point being that we attempt to achieve what we really want rather than merely settle for what the ideologues of the last century told us "was all that we could have".

Screw that!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Obviously what we disagree on is the popularity of the anti-capitalist movement. We need a committed world for communism, of that I am sure. But we simply do not have a committed world. We have many revolutionary movements displaced across the globe. This means that nations changing is far more likely in the next few years than the world changing. And as long as we only have nations, not a world, we must settle for socialism. I do not base such judgement on ideologues of the past, but rather current global conditions. The simple fact is that before we have several committed socialist nations, no communist revolution can take place. Perhaps, though, we do not need a world after all, but only a few nations to turn socialist. Once this happens then perhaps we can ignite worldwide communist revolution somehow. But either way, socialism is a prerequisite for communism. Also, note that this socialism of which I speak is not the same as the so-called socialist countries like the USSR and China.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
But either way, socialism is a prerequisite for communism. Also, note that this socialism of which I speak is not the same as the so-called socialist countries like the USSR and China.

Well, all of the Leninist parties that I know of advocate a "socialism" based on the Russian-Chinese model...even the Trotskyists. They fiddle around with the details -- a little more of this, a little less of that, etc.

But the basic model stands...

1. A new and permanent state apparatus.

2. With a professional army and police force.

3. Under the permanent leadership (control) of the Leninist party.

4. Nationalization of the means of production and the introduction of centralized economic planning/management on a professional basis.

5. Continued production of commodities for sale; continued use of money; continued inequality of wages; appropriation of surplus value by the state apparatus.

I believe there are some Trotskyists who've backed down on point 3 -- they are willing to permit multi-party elections for public office under socialism...but, in a way, that's actually worse: they are willing to permit capitalist and even fascist parties to run for office.

But I think that's a "pseudo"-position (a.k.a., a lie); once their party got into power, I think they'd break their promise and decide that, after all, the revolution "needs" their permanent "guidance".

This is what we have been told is a "prerequisite" for communism.

Like you have to take "Algebra 101" before you can take "Algebra 102".

So if you mean something "different" by the word "socialism", then you have to explain how you depart from this basic and widely-accepted Leninist model.

Keep in mind that you can't just say "I want the USSR plus workers' power"...those are incompatible objectives, as any good Leninist would quickly remind you.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

Well, let's see how closely my beliefs come to the accepted 'Leninist' ones.

1. A permanent state? How permanent? We have to destroy the state when world socialism comes, since after world socialism the goal is communism.

2. I've objected previously to a 'professional' army or police. I want professional law enforcement, like professional detectives, etc. But people's militias, instead of professional units, can defend and police themselves as well as any other ones. And such people's militias will allow state funding to go elsewhere. This will save us a tremendous amount of money.

3. Multi-party systems should be used. Redstar, you overestimate the powers of the capitalists who lose power. If power is obtained through violent revoltuion, then throw your objection to a multi-party system out, as capitalists will likely go into exile to save their asses. Even if power is gained through elections, propaganda can be used to destroy capitalists. All we have to do in socialism is appease the workers, peasants, and farmers, and any capitalist desires for power will be exterminated. Also, with people's militias about, one can guess that under any socialist system, militant or power hungry capitalists will go into exile.

4. Actually, I'm a big advocate of localized planning, where workers would elect one of their own to work closely with an economic specialist and the local government to plan local workplace production. I am not in favor of any 'central planning'. All planning should be localized as much as possible (if major blemishes begin to be noticeable, obviously state and federal governments can step in, but this should be a last resort).

5. I agree with this one, except that I must make clear that extensive redistributive policies will exist to ensure that combined with salaries, all workers have the means to living aka a living wage.

I have been toying with the idea of a true 'communist bloc' of states for trading purposes once we have several committed socialist states (in other words, create territorial or even multinational communism). The problem with such a tactic is that it will internalize most actions of the states involved, and thus will not likely prove to suitably spread socialism and then communism across the globe. But I remain in my thinknig that we must have atleast soem socialism before we get communism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)1. A new and permanent state apparatus.[/b]


Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)1. A permanent state? How permanent? We have to destroy the state when world socialism comes, since after world socialism the goal is communism.[/b]

Ah, but when will that be? There are plenty of countries in the world which are just beginning to tentatively enter modern capitalism...and plenty of others still stuck in neo-colonial dependency. It will be a long time before such countries develop to the point where they are "ready" for socialism.

So do we put communism on "indefinite hold" in the countries where proletarian revolution has taken place and wait for the rest of the planet to "catch up"?

That's really what Leninists in the "west" propose...though almost never in plain words.


[email protected]
5. Continued production of commodities for sale; continued use of money; continued inequality of wages; appropriation of surplus value by the state apparatus.


anomaly
5. I agree with this one, except that I must make clear that extensive redistributive policies will exist to ensure that combined with salaries, all workers have the means to living a.k.a. a living wage.

Yes, that's the real "worm" in the Leninist "apple".

Socialism, like capitalism, is a society in which the more money you have, the better you live.

Therefore, everyone has a direct material incentive to do whatever it takes to acquire more money.

The material foundation for the restoration of capitalism remains in place...all that's required is time and corruption and you end up with a new capitalist ruling class.

Most of the illicit wealth goes to leading members of the party and state apparatus...but the rot spreads all the way to the bottom -- pilfering public goods becomes common practice.

So while Leninist socialism is "marking time" waiting for "world socialism", it decays from within. At some point, a political tendency emerges that represents corruption and the class interests of the most corrupt (Maoists call it "revisionism")...and they proceed to actually restore capitalism.

Ongoing economic inequality is the "Achilles' heel" of socialism...it means that you will never reach communism but, instead, will always regress to capitalism.

Accordingly, I conclude that we must try to build a communist society from day one after the revolution.

Otherwise, our hopes are doomed.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:08 PM
A no party system is based on the election of independent workers for representation, rather than having a single party control things and lead to a bureaucracy of a new class or allowing the existence of capitalist parties.

That's pretty much how I see it. [link] (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35340)


I disagree with the majority of the "centralist" aspect of it, but I do believe that power should be nearly equally decentralized and centralized between accountable federal and communal governments.

I think every commune should be self-managed in the interior sense [workers' self-management], but connected on global levels for economic purpouses, for exchange and production planning, communications etc.
Globalistation of production and economy as a whole demands "centralization", but not in an authoritative way [so that won't be the case], but simply for planning and organisation.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 10 2005, 03:40 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 10 2005, 03:40 PM)
Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)1. A new and permanent state apparatus.[/b]


Originally posted by anomaly
1. A permanent state? How permanent? We have to destroy the state when world socialism comes, since after world socialism the goal is communism.

Ah, but when will that be? There are plenty of countries in the world which are just beginning to tentatively enter modern capitalism...and plenty of others still stuck in neo-colonial dependency. It will be a long time before such countries develop to the point where they are "ready" for socialism.

So do we put communism on "indefinite hold" in the countries where proletarian revolution has taken place and wait for the rest of the planet to "catch up"?

That's really what Leninists in the "west" propose...though almost never in plain words.


[email protected]
5. Continued production of commodities for sale; continued use of money; continued inequality of wages; appropriation of surplus value by the state apparatus.


anomaly
5. I agree with this one, except that I must make clear that extensive redistributive policies will exist to ensure that combined with salaries, all workers have the means to living a.k.a. a living wage.

Yes, that's the real "worm" in the Leninist "apple".

Socialism, like capitalism, is a society in which the more money you have, the better you live.

Therefore, everyone has a direct material incentive to do whatever it takes to acquire more money.

The material foundation for the restoration of capitalism remains in place...all that's required is time and corruption and you end up with a new capitalist ruling class.

Most of the illicit wealth goes to leading members of the party and state apparatus...but the rot spreads all the way to the bottom -- pilfering public goods becomes common practice.

So while Leninist socialism is "marking time" waiting for "world socialism", it decays from within. At some point, a political tendency emerges that represents corruption and the class interests of the most corrupt (Maoists call it "revisionism")...and they proceed to actually restore capitalism.

Ongoing economic inequality is the "Achilles' heel" of socialism...it means that you will never reach communism but, instead, will always regress to capitalism.

Accordingly, I conclude that we must try to build a communist society from day one after the revolution.

Otherwise, our hopes are doomed.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
1. I completely disagree. I think that poorer states could effectively be socialist. Any state would prosper from socialism, I think. You misread the global economy...there are no states in the world that aren't capitalist. Globalization has taken care of this.

5. Actually, I've avoided such a 'rotting' process within my ssystem. I've proposed that we have local planners that will, with aid from the local government, plan the production of their factories/workplaces. These planners, as well as the local government, will be democratically selected. Therefore, no capitalist ruling class in reality exists, since this class is directly controlled by the proletariat. Capitalists today are the owners of capital. In socialism, there are no true 'owners' of capital, rather, former owners of capital are voted out, and new owners are democratically selected. Such a system will abolish your problem.

Through it all, I believe socialism will lead to the betterment of the lives of the proletariat, and this is worth fighting for. That being said, I have grown rather sympathetic of your cause and would gladly consider fighting for it. But there are no answers with you ideology, there's no material signs of it, really. Do you have any idea when or where or even if your revolution will begin? Where are the revolutionaries to lead such a revolution? Do you think such a revolution can be successful? Lastly, most importantly, how do you plan on gaining the support of atleast a majority of the gloabal proletariat?

[TC]

farleft


Communism can only come about via armed struggle.

Political power does come from the barrel of a gun.

Bourgeois elections will never bring about communism.



I agree that ultimate political power comes from 'the barrel of a gun'...but 9999 times out of 10,000, people who wield power in that manner don't do it by actual violence, they do it by the *threat* of violence. I mean think about it, Bourgeois states don't have to shoot all the Proles to force them to follow their laws, in fact if they did, they'd starve, but its enough that they *could* shoot any individual prole that keeps most of them in line most of the time. People don't take risks that they can't afford to, most people wont do something if they think they are more likely then not to serve a long jail sentince or die in the attempt. Just as the bourgeois states have to show the proles that the risk to them in going against the state exceeds the possible benefits, proletarian states can do the same...like if a workers party wins an election under such circumstances that the bougeois estimates that if they attempted to stage a coup against the new regime, they would be more likely to lose then win, they aren't going to try. No one starts wars that they expect to lose.


Hi Redstar,



Petrograd, February, 1917.

No leader, no plan,...and no Czar!


Thats not really what happened in the February revolution, at all.

There was an unpopular war, the Czar, who was already leading a constitutional monarchy with the liberal Kadets as a serious political force, resigned after riots in Petrograd in favor of his brother, who refused, so the Czar's Duma became the Provisional Government. This wasn't a change in the class that controlled the state, it was a change in administration, from one royal, Czar Nicholas II, to another royal, Prince Georgy Lvov, both of whom led liberal governments protecting private property of the proto-capitalist ruling class.

There was a plan, the Czar's plan! There were leaders, the capitalists!


Wha???

Chavez is, at best, a social democrat. Belarus is a corrupt despotism.

What do those places have to do with us?


Chavez is in no way a 'social democrat', he is a self-declared socialist and a self-declared revolutionary, he overturned Venezeula's social and economic order, supports the Communist guerrilla's in Colombia, agressively redistributed land, took the countries oil management away from the capitalists, armed the workers and organized them into militias proven capable of resisting a capitalist counter-revolution...his objective both in his actions and in his words has been to end capitalism not to reform it.


I am under the impression that Belarus is a principly collectively owned economy with socialism in all but name, is clearly not a market open to America (or the Bush Administration wouldn't be calling it the 'last dictatorship in europe'), but i'm not as familier with it so i don' twant to argue the point. I certaintly though wouldn't believe that its a "corrupt despotism" just because the American media and government says as much; they equate capitalism and political systems that support capitalists with "democracy" and socialism and poiltical systems that support workers with "despotism."






There was a socialist government in Chile that came to power through "bourgeois" election...


A left bourgeois reformist government.

What's that have to do with us?

Okay lets just suppose that Allende and his government was a bourgeois government. If the bourgeois didn't want Allende, their guy, to do something, why didn't they just call up his offices and simply explain that they needed him to protect their buisness interests or they would back another bourgeois politician next election cycle, you know the way they do it in bourgeois 'democracies.' If Allende was working for the bourgeois, why couldn't they have just given him instructions or pressured him to follow their interests, why did they have to kill him?


The idea that the bourgeois would overthrow the government when the government was already controlled by the bourgeois is totally absurd; How can someone forcibly take something that they already have?


Allende's government was revolutionary not reformist. He nationalized industries and banking violating bourgeois property 'rights', refused to honor international debts, taxed company profit, controlled prices for all goods effectively ending the 'market economy', established a high profile alliance with Cuba; those are not the actions of someone working for the bourgeois.




If the ruling class is "isolated politically", they will declare a "state of national emergency" and cancel the elections.



One of the standard, and frankly convincing, leftist arguments against revolution through elections is that its felt that the bourgeois will prevent any revolutionary slate from taking their elected offices if doing so would give them the power to end capitalism...or that if revolutionaries assume office they'll simply be defeated in a coup detat.

No doubt that the capitalists would like to prevent revolutionaries from taking or remaining in office...but whether or not they actually have the power to do so is not nearly as much of a given as you're suggesting.

There was a violent military coup on the demands of the capitalists against Chavez, they had every intention of taking him out of his democratically elected office, its just that they failed...the presidential guard took the palace back from the army and the bolivarian circles rioted and took the television stations back from the police. The bourgeois didn't give up its power without a fight...but by the time that the violence started they were already in the weaker position...had the actual balance of power been more visible they probably wouldn't have tried at all. Thats how revolutionary governments can come to power in elections (again not that it would work everywhere or even in most places).




Horseshit!

The working class in Barcelona probably accomplished more in a week than Allende (who was not "a marxist") would have achieved had he lived to be 100!



Well thats a matter of unsubstantiated opinion. As i said, Allende out did them on scale, in terms of size and population, chile is a much bigger place then Barcelona :-p. If you can give examples of what the barcelona working class (stalinist/trotskyist/anarchist/repubilcan, not just anarchist) accomplished, materially, i haven't really heard it from you.




The Paris Commune was not a despotism. It's not easy to do, but a "quasi-state" can emerge from a "leaderless" and "unplanned" revolution that does not result in despotism.



Um, the parisian National Guard, led by a central committee, took over Paris and installed a 92 member council to govern it. How is that "not despotism" but when anyone does percisely the same thing on a larger scale it is "despotism."



In a literal sense, that's quite true. But I think you know what's being discussed here -- can a small group "plan" and "lead" a proletarian revolution in the "west"?

The answer is no.


You might be thinking "small group" and "west" but we weren't specifically talking about either. Nearly every revolution, maybe excepting the Cuban revolution depending on your reading of it, has been led by large groups...and i have never argued that a proletarian revolution can happen in the west at all.




You're in the same boat, kiddo! Whenever the Leninist party has tried to "jump out in front" and "organize" a revolution, you've fallen flat on your ass!


Since when have i advocated using a "leninist party" to "organize" a revolution?

As i said, different states and nations require different strategies and different types of organization.




You are "waiting" for a spontaneous revolutionary upheaval just like me.

No, no, i'm really not, because i knwo that there are not spontaneous revolutionary upheavals...there are just organizations that choose to exploit oprotune moments to stage a revolution, to MAKE it happen.



The phenomenon of real world uprisings is very complicated and we don't have a real understanding of why they happen in one place and not another or at one time and not another time.


Well i'll take your word for it that you don't have a real understanding of why uprisings happen but people who understand Marxism do. Revolutionaries who actually make revolutions and counter-revolutionaries who try to prevent them have damn good understandigns of why they happen in one place and not another, their futures depend on understanding it.



The Leninist conceit that "they, and only they, know how to do it" is certainly one of their most irritating characteristics...as it's obvious that they don't know crap.

This sounds more Anarchist then Marxist-Leninist. Marxist-Leninist, the ones who actually deal with the reality of power politics, not Trotskyists or post-Mao anti-Revisionists, never think that only Marxist-Leninists know how to make revolutions that lead to the types of societies we want. Allende, Chavez, Saddam, Nasser, Arafat and Qaddafi, for instance, are widely supported by that sort of Marxist-Leninist as being legitimate revolutionaries fighting for the same class of people that Marxist-Leninists do, but none of them would have termed themselves "marxist-leninist" or belonged to a Communist party. If a revolutionary movement ends up with a socialist or near-socialist society it really doesn't matter if they think of it as Marxist-Leninist or not, the benefits to the people who live there are the same.



Unless, of course, despotism is what you really want.

What you really want is your mantra...

I said in another thread to you that what i really want is "a society where everyone has a decent standard of living, people don't have to compete with one another to survive or live in acceptable comfort, people are free to conduct themselves in their personal lives as they choose as long as they don't interfere with other's rights to do the same, material wealth is distributed comparatively evenly, where utilities, health care, education, housing, food and employment are guaranteed as rights by the government."

Now if thats your defintion of "despotism" then i guess i do want "despotism" but i think most people would find that to be a fairly esoteric defintion of what most would call "socialism" or "democracy."

If you want people to "be free" as i think you said in the other thread, it might be useful if you defined that more specifically...freedom to do/have what? Freedom from its use on both the right and the left clearly means different things to different people.




For reasons unclear to us, a small proletarian insurrection (in one city or even one neighborhood or one workplace) sets off a storm which may grow so powerful that the old social order is simply swept away. There are lots of plans, but no PLAN. There are lots of individual leaders, but no LEADER.


lol i love the "for reasons unclear to us" disclaimer :lol:

Small urban proletarian insurrections with no plan and no leadership aren't actually that rare. They're called 'riots.' They tend to just sweep away glass windows, not the old social order so much. And...in the few instances that cities or neighborhoods have come under mob rule or close to it, it hasn't spread and it hasn't led to a revolution. I mean why wasn't there a French revolution from Paris in 1871 or 1968?


(As a side note, i have no clue why you think "leaders" are okay but a a 'leader' is not...there were plenty of times in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China where there was no clear "leader" so much as different factions supporting different leaders who worked in the same government but didn't differ to any 'top leader')





One reason that this may happen so unexpectedly is that we have no tools to perceive the "invisible weaknesses" of the old order. It "looks" as strong and powerful as it ever did...but it really isn't. It's a shell, a collection of stage-settings that no longer have any material strength behind them...they topple and crash with a single blow.

It might be good leftist rhetoric to say that the capitalist state only appears to be strong, just a shell, could be toppled by a single blow, ect...but the reality is that while the proletariat by superior numbers has the *potential* to be vastly more pwoerful then the capitalists, they are in fact much weaker then capital because the capitalists are well organized and the proles are not.

Lenin supposedly said "Can the power of a hundred be greater than the power of a thousand? It can. And it does, when the hundred is organized." Whether he did or not, the point is certaintly empirically correct which is what counts.



That is not to say that conscious revolutionaries have no role to play up to that point. It is our responsibility to educate people with revolutionary ideas; it is part of our task to encourage and participate in popular resistance to the despotism of capital.

Revolutionaries make revolutions...people who pass out literature, commie newspapers, and try to give away anarchist stuff, aren't doing anything "revolutionary." What you're describing isn't being a revolutionary its being a provocateur...you don't want to throw a molotov cocktail at a police car, you want to put up someone else to doing it, or whatever symbolic example you'd prefer.



Peace has no chance.

It never did.


And yet you're waiting for someone else to disrupt the peace, you're not willing to do it yourself...so maybe you like peace more then you think! :-p.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
I completely disagree. I think that poorer states could effectively be socialist. Any state would prosper from socialism, I think. You misread the global economy...there are no states in the world that aren't capitalist. Globalization has taken care of this.

There are no countries in the world that do not possess at least "islands" of capitalist development. But, for example, Angola is not a capitalist country...even though it has a modern oil-extraction development and a tiny industrial workforce. Most of Angola is a lot closer to the 7th century CE than it is to the 21st. There are many such countries and not just in Africa.

Sure, you could impose a "socialist structure" on such a country -- look at the 'People's Republic of Mongolia". They had all the stage-sets of a socialist country...but most of the people there still lived in tents and herded domestic animals for a living.

Is Afghanistan a capitalist country? Or anywhere even close? :lol:


Therefore, no capitalist ruling class in reality exists, since this class is directly controlled by the proletariat.

You miss my point. This is not simply a question of how you structure a socialist society (more democratic or less democratic).

It's a matter of the psychological impact of commodity circulation, money, a market, etc.

In a society where some people make more money than others, and hence live better than others, the primary motive for corruption is "in place" and "ready to go to work". No matter where you happen to be located in the process of production and distribution, the incentive to "skim" is present. Many people who are highly motivated by the promise of socialism will resist that incentive...at least for a long time.

Others won't resist...they'll start taking "a little bite" at once. Eventually, the impression will arise that "everyone does it" so "why not me?".

You can slow this process down at the price of draconian measures...people caught stealing public property, giving or taking bribes, etc. are summarily shot. But that just means your repressive apparatus will also start taking bribes and cutting themselves in on any racket that happens to be going.

And eventually, capitalism is restored.


But there are no answers with your ideology, there's no material signs of it, really. Do you have any idea when or where or even if your revolution will begin? Where are the revolutionaries to lead such a revolution? Do you think such a revolution can be successful? Lastly, most importantly, how do you plan on gaining the support of at least a majority of the global proletariat?

True, the idea of a communist revolution has no support at all beyond an insignificant handful of people scattered about the "west".

The shadow of Lenin et.al. is a long one...and most of the people who are opposed to capitalism cannot see (at this time) any "realistic" alternative except socialism...capitalism without capitalists. (Many present-day opponents of capitalism are so demoralized that they actually want to have "a free market" in their version of socialism. :o)

IF Marx was right about the source of proletarian class-consciousness, however, then the present situation will change over the course of this century. The "signs" that you are looking for will emerge.

I expect those signs to emerge first in western Europe...where capitalism is old and well-developed.

And the support of the global proletariat is not something that I have to "obtain"...it's something that emerges naturally in response to capitalism itself.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Hi, Clown,


Originally posted by TragicClown
This wasn't a change in the class that controlled the state, it was a change in administration, from one royal, Czar Nicholas II, to another royal, Prince Georgy Lvov, both of whom led liberal governments protecting private property of the proto-capitalist ruling class.

There was a plan, the Czar's plan! There were leaders, the capitalists!

Makes the whole thing sound utterly pointless, doesn't it? :lol:

Except the "new Czars" couldn't do anything without getting the Petrograd Soviet to go along with it...and couldn't do anything in the countryside at all -- where the peasantry were enthusiastically liquidating the private property of the aristocracy along with any aristocrats that they could catch.

In a formal sense, it was a period of "dual power" (as Lenin put it). In practical terms, the old regime could have been dispersed at any time after February 1917.

One of the provisional government members commented later on that he was surprised it lasted as long as it did.


Chavez is in no way a 'social democrat', he is a self-declared socialist and a self-declared revolutionary...

Here we go again...I suppose there will be Chavez t-shirts next. :lol:

Can you even remotely grasp the idea that Marxists look past what people "self-declare" about themselves to examine the material reality?

Venezuela remains a capitalist country. The means of production remain privately held. There are no functioning organs of working class power there.

That's not socialism...it's social democracy.


Okay, let's just suppose that Allende and his government was a bourgeois government. If the bourgeoisie didn't want Allende, their guy, to do something, why didn't they just call up his offices and simply explain that they needed him to protect their business interests or they would back another bourgeois politician next election cycle, you know the way they do it in bourgeois 'democracies.' If Allende was working for the bourgeois, why couldn't they have just given him instructions or pressured him to follow their interests, why did they have to kill him?

Because the bourgeoisie are not "super-human" and, on occasion, act counter to their own class interests, that's why.

We have an example of that in American history. J.P. Morgan tried to organize a military coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt (General MacArthur was going to be the dictator)...but it got squashed before it could ever really get off the ground.

Does that make Roosevelt a "revolutionary socialist"?


...and I have never argued that a proletarian revolution can happen in the west at all.

Then perhaps we are arguing at cross-purposes. With Marx, I don't expect proletarian revolutions in backward and semi-developed countries. I expect "third world" revolutions to be anti-imperialist bourgeois revolutions in effect if no longer in name. I expect those revolutions to modernize their countries, get rid of the old parasitic elites, prepare the way for those countries to return to the world market as real "players" (with the leading figures of the "revolutionary party" becoming modern bourgeoisie).

They are historically progressive revolutions and I support them for that reason. But they are not socialist...much less communist.

They can't be...the material basis doesn't yet exist.


No, no, I'm really not, because I know that there are not spontaneous revolutionary upheavals...there are just organizations that choose to exploit opportune moments to stage a revolution, to MAKE it happen.

To "roll the dice" and see what happens, eh? If you win, it's because "you really knew what you were doing". And if you don't win, well... :(

Bah!


Well I'll take your word for it that you don't have a real understanding of why uprisings happen but people who understand Marxism do. Revolutionaries who actually make revolutions and counter-revolutionaries who try to prevent them have damn good understandings of why they happen in one place and not another, their futures depend on understanding it.

Do you imagine that if you yell that real loud, people might believe it? Might just ignore all the "makers of revolution" who never made shit? Who "miscalculated" the objective conditions?

Marx and Engels, widely reputed to have a pretty decent "understanding of Marxism", made a fair number of predictions about forthcoming revolutions.

Most of them wrong.

I repeat: we do not know why revolutions happen in one place and not another and at one point in time at not another.

That includes both you and your "makers of revolution".


Marxist-Leninists, the ones who actually deal with the reality of power politics, not Trotskyists or post-Mao anti-Revisionists, never think that only Marxist-Leninists know how to make revolutions that lead to the types of societies we want. Allende, Chavez, Saddam, Nasser, Arafat and Qaddafi, for instance, are widely supported by that sort of Marxist-Leninist as being legitimate revolutionaries fighting for the same class of people that Marxist-Leninists do...

:o :o :o

I like that phrase "the reality of power politics"...it sounds so, um, real. :lol:

And if your "Marxist-Leninist big tent" can include all those guys, they can surely squeeze in a few more. Certainly Peron of Argentina would qualify. Assad in Syria? Milosevic in Serbia? Even Batista should get in before 1952, right? (He had a good working relationship with the Popular Socialist Party -- pro-USSR Leninists -- before then.)

Your criteria are so generous that it's difficult to imagine who would be excluded from your pantheon of people who "fight for the same class".

I wonder, in fact, just what class that might be. :lol:


If a revolutionary movement ends up with a socialist or near-socialist society it really doesn't matter if they think of it as Marxist-Leninist or not, the benefits to the people who live there are the same.

Ah, a new category for "Marxist-Leninist" analysis: near-socialism.

Ok, I'll take the plunge: near-socialism is a capitalist society in which there are some nationalized industries and an extensive welfare-system but all substantive political power remains in the hands of the capitalist class.

Does that sound right?

Sounds like social democracy to me.


I said in another thread to you that what I really want is "a society where everyone has a decent standard of living, people don't have to compete with one another to survive or live in acceptable comfort, people are free to conduct themselves in their personal lives as they choose as long as they don't interfere with other's rights to do the same, material wealth is distributed comparatively evenly, where utilities, health care, education, housing, food and employment are guaranteed as rights by the government."

Now if that's your definition of "despotism" then I guess I do want "despotism" but I think most people would find that to be a fairly esoteric definition of what most would call "socialism" or "democracy."

So...move to Sweden. They have all that stuff.

I can't help what "most people think", try as I might.

I can only point out that nothing of "what you want" suggests the abolition of wage slavery.

You just want velcro chains and shaded auction blocs.

Red flags are optional.


I mean why wasn't there a French revolution from Paris in 1871 or 1968?

As I've already said, we don't know.


Revolutionaries make revolutions...people who pass out literature, commie newspapers, and try to give away anarchist stuff, aren't doing anything "revolutionary." What you're describing isn't being a revolutionary, it's being a provocateur...you don't want to throw a molotov cocktail at a police car, you want to put up someone else to doing it, or whatever symbolic example you'd prefer.

Yes, I intend to do whatever I can to provoke active resistance to the despotism of capital.

Shame on me. :D

You, I presume, have other ideas...perhaps a seat in the legislature? :lol:


And yet you're waiting for someone else to disrupt the peace, you're not willing to do it yourself...so maybe you like peace more then you think!

Well, I am 63...and a pretty damn feeble 63 at that! :(

But in my time (60s and 70s), I "did my bit" in the class struggle and the movement of which I was a part (SDS) managed to stir up a considerable fuss.

And I can still pass on the same message that I did in my "glory years"...resist!

In "big ways" if you can, in small ways if that's all that's practical.

But always resist!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JC1]

Here we go again...I suppose there will be Chavez t-shirts next.

Can you even remotely grasp the idea that Marxists look past what people "self-declare" about themselves to examine the material reality?

Venezuela remains a capitalist country. The means of production remain privately held. There are no functioning organs of working class power there.

That's not socialism...it's social democracy.


Thats false. Many Enterprises are State Owned under workers manegment, and the UNT has made Workers Manegment one of the fundemental demands.


Because the bourgeoisie are not "super-human" and, on occasion, act counter to their own class interests, that's why.

We have an example of that in American history. J.P. Morgan tried to organize a military coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt (General MacArthur was going to be the dictator)...but it got squashed before it could ever really get off the ground.

Does that make Roosevelt a "revolutionary socialist"?


Actualy , the coup as caused becuase Allende was about to make sweeping natinolizations. This dosent mean that parlimentary Struggle is feasible in the first world , but It can be a road to power for the workin class in "3rd" world countries.



Then perhaps we are arguing at cross-purposes. With Marx, I don't expect proletarian revolutions in backward and semi-developed countries. I expect "third world" revolutions to be anti-imperialist bourgeois revolutions in effect if no longer in name. I expect those revolutions to modernize their countries, get rid of the old parasitic elites, prepare the way for those countries to return to the world market as real "players" (with the leading figures of the "revolutionary party" becoming modern bourgeoisie).

They are historically progressive revolutions and I support them for that reason. But they are not socialist...much less communist.

They can't be...the material basis doesn't yet exist.


How can you deny there fundementaly prolatarian reveloutions. There a Historical By-product of imperialism becuase the Imperialist Bourgoise bought out the lovcal capital and re-enforced the conditions of fuedilism so it could suck surplus value out of workers easier. Obviously the Workin' class is the only class that is reveloutionary in those countrys.

[JC1]

You miss my point. This is not simply a question of how you structure a socialist society (more democratic or less democratic).

It's a matter of the psychological impact of commodity circulation, money, a market, etc.

In a society where some people make more money than others, and hence live better than others, the primary motive for corruption is "in place" and "ready to go to work". No matter where you happen to be located in the process of production and distribution, the incentive to "skim" is present. Many people who are highly motivated by the promise of socialism will resist that incentive...at least for a long time.

Others won't resist...they'll start taking "a little bite" at once. Eventually, the impression will arise that "everyone does it" so "why not me?".

You can slow this process down at the price of draconian measures...people caught stealing public property, giving or taking bribes, etc. are summarily shot. But that just means your repressive apparatus will also start taking bribes and cutting themselves in on any racket that happens to be going.

And eventually, capitalism is restored.


So , Social Cousince determine Social Being , eh ?

This is like when the maoists say that capitilist restoration in the USSR was a result of a secret speech and the re-wording of the counstitution.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Long time no post. This is the kinda thread I enjoy reading but I'll sit this one out with only a few posts ...


You miss my point. This is not simply a question of how you structure a socialist society (more democratic or less democratic).

It's a matter of the psychological impact of commodity circulation, money, a market, etc.

In a society where some people make more money than others, and hence live better than others, the primary motive for corruption is "in place" and "ready to go to work". No matter where you happen to be located in the process of production and distribution, the incentive to "skim" is present. Many people who are highly motivated by the promise of socialism will resist that incentive...at least for a long time.

Others won't resist...they'll start taking "a little bite" at once. Eventually, the impression will arise that "everyone does it" so "why not me?".

You can slow this process down at the price of draconian measures...people caught stealing public property, giving or taking bribes, etc. are summarily shot. But that just means your repressive apparatus will also start taking bribes and cutting themselves in on any racket that happens to be going.

And eventually, capitalism is restored.

All I have to say is that this will all take time. Not everyone will be in the right mindset (and in my opinion mindset IS socialism) and so such things that you mention above will happen, regardless of the "wages" people are recieving. It appears that it is a danger that cannot be avoided.

Lack of material incentive, no matter how much we may dislike it, will affect many people. They will no longer work hard, they will no longer care to put all their energies into being as productive as they can ... they may see no point in it, "why work hard at work or to study to become a doctor when you make the same as a factory worker. Sad but true.

The risk is always there of regressing back to capitalism, it is inevitable regardless of how a revolution takes place.


In conclusion, TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME! If anyone can assure me that a specific "way" properly takes into account the amount of time that is needed, than I will be supportive.

Everyone needs to remember that time is very important, but it also does not pay to lay around and hope for this change in mindset to happen. It is all a gamble.

TGOW