Are You Anti-Sectarian?

[The American Bolshevik]

For quite some time, I debated whether I was Marxist, Marxist-Leninists, Maoist, etc., but then something hit be - rather blatantly - why choose? Isn't one of the key points of communism unity? If we can't even unite amongst our comrades on what to believe, how are we going to destroy the evils that is capitalism?

Capitalists united long ago, and look what happened? They developed nations like the US and UK. Thus, I stated myself as anti-sectarian and now take what I can from my comrades, whether they be Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Castro, or any other comrade.

There is no need to seperation and I encourage others to stop bickering over whether or not their certain theological belief conflicts with the other. We should all strive to not be seperated by these lines and get the best of them all.

Now, what is your opinion on this and please tell us whether you are anti-sectarian or a member of the sects of Communism such as Marxist-Leninism, Moaism, Trotskyism, etc.

[YKTMX]

Anyway, as I've said before, I'll never "forgive and forget" the Show Trials, Labour camps, the Hitler-Stalin pact, the Ukranian famine, forced collectivization etc.

I won't cooperate with people sentimental for butchery, and by the way, that isn't always "hardline" Stalinists. You'll find plenty of people on the so-called democratic left who say "oh, maybe it wasn't all bad" - as if full employment somehow mitigates the police state.

[The American Bolshevik]

(Yeah.. I did.. Damn...)

True. And yes I know it's not only 'hardline' Stalinists.

Yet...

When capital and ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, Class Privilege, the 7 day Working Week, Children in Coalmines, the Opium Wars, the Massacre of the Paris Commune, Slavery, the Spanish-American war, the Boer War, Starvation, Apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, Trench Warfare, Mustard Gas, Aerial Bombing, the Soviet Intervention, the Armenian Genocide, Chemical Weapons, Fascism, the Great Depression, Hunger Marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, Militarism, Asbestosis, Radiation Death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, the Mafia, thNuclear Weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, Production Lines, Blacklists, Thalidomide, the Rape of the Third World, Poverty, the Arms Race, Plastic Surgery, the Electric Chair, Enviromental Degradation, the Vietnam War, e military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesa, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey,the Gulf War, trade in Human Body Parts, Malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, Deforestation, Organised Crime, the Heroin and Cocain Trade, Tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, Cancer, Exploitation of Labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then - and only then - will I consider apologising for the errors of socialism.

(Got it from an old desktop theme, but still makes sense...)

[Aaezil]

"but then something hit be - rather blatantly - why choose? Isn't one of the key points of communism unity?"

YES! a brilliant thought. Solidarity, comrades!

FUCK SECTARIANISM!

"There is no need to seperation and I encourage others to stop bickering over whether or not their certain theological belief conflicts with the other."

yes, i agree. theory is about 1% of what is important WORK is 99%

one more time, loud and clear

FUCK SECTARIANISM!

[YKTMX]

There's a diffirence between being sectarian and fundamentally differing on politics with someone.

For instance, I wouldn't "join" with fascists because I want to create a fundamentally diffirent society to them. The same goes for the Stalinists and the Maoists.

[The American Bolshevik]

Yay. More anti-sectarians.

[Severian]

Sectarian means putting some special ideological point, some theological belief as you put it, ahead of the living class struggle.

But you seem to be assuming that all distinction among people who call themselves communist, is based on those ideological shibboleths.

Many are. Others are based on rivalries in organizational interests of small groups. Or purely on differences in the origin and past of the different groups.

But not all these divisions are. Most people who call themselves communist simply aren't. If by communist one means the same thing the Communist Manifesto means by that word....

They aren't fighting for the interests of the worldwide working class, seeking to advance along the course of its struggle towards its complete self-liberation.

For example, Stalinist groups - of all varieties, not just those which still venerate Stalin personally - developed to serve the interest of the Kremlin, the PRC government, and other bureaucratic regimes. And now that their sponsors have lost power, they've just become weaker, not better.

[The American Bolshevik]

True. But even there, we should adhere to our own united ideology of unity amongst the proletariat and set aside these rivalries for the betterment of the entire working class.

[ZACKist]

Wow. TAB, a trully great idea.

I too have wondered why differences can't be set aside and unity cannot take place. We're all proletariat. Do we not all have the same goal?

[Severian]

Originally posted by The American [email protected] 3 2005, 01:30 PM
True. But even there, we should adhere to our own united ideology of unity amongst the proletariat and set aside these rivalries for the betterment of the entire working class.
Unity of the working class is not the same thing as unity of the "left".

Most workers are not leftists and most leftists are not workers.

[The American Bolshevik]

True, I'll give you that. But, don't communists and anarchists have atleast one same goal? The destruction of state, class, etc. and the unification of a worldwide working class?

Primative Communalism ->
Serfdom/Slavery ->
Feudalism ->
Merchantalism ->
Capitalism ->
Socialism ->
Communism/Anarchic Utopia (Goal for Communists and Anarchsists)

If we work together, we all ultimately meet the same goal in time. We could unite for that single goal, and in the process of meeting it, achieve the others.

[More Fire for the People]

The vanguard party must unite all factions in resistance to the capitalist, but the guiding principle of the party should be Marxism-Leninism.

Particapatory democracy will strengthen us by letting everyones view point be put across.

[bolshevik butcher]

I'm just about on board with anyone on the left except the stlainists. Including anarchists.

[More Fire for the People]

It is hard to argue that Stalinism is actually on the left.

[The American Bolshevik]

Stalinism is on the left because it does despise capitalism. However, it is so authoritarian, that it boarders on fascism. So, according to the political compass site, it would be (roughly)

Economic: -10
Social: +9.5

(In my opinion.)

[More Fire for the People]

Stalin put into practice what I like "whatthefuckism" for the economic policy, if the policy is a leftist one well... nobody knows.

[Vanguard1917]

we should adhere to our own united ideology of unity amongst the proletariat and set aside these rivalries for the betterment of the entire working class.

The trouble is that different groups have differing ideas on what 'the interests of the working class' are. Of course unity among the left is something that should be strived for. But unity is useless if its only for the sake of unity. For example, we as Marxists would believe that unity with bourgeois utopian socialists and anarchists is a reactionary step if that unity means betraying the tactics which we believe are vital for the emancipation of the working class. If, on the other hand, we can persuade such groups that our strategies are superior, and that our tactics are the only ones that truly express the interests of the class that we represent, then unity would be a great thing - not as some absract principle, but as a fruitful, practical activity.

United we stand, divided we fall. But if unity means that none of us are able to stand, then we all fall.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:42 PM
The vanguard party must unite all factions in resistance to the capitalist, but the guiding principle of the party should be Marxism-Leninism.

Good luck on persuading the Anarchists on that one

[More Fire for the People]

Eh... I was in a "Marxist-Leninist' mood, personally my ideology changes everyday.

Unity is still the most important force within the proletarian revolution.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by The American [email protected] 3 2005, 07:18 PM
Stalinism is on the left because it does despise capitalism.

So, according to the political compass site, it would be (roughly)

Economic: -10
Social: +9.5

(In my opinion.)
Despising capitalism is a poor definition of left; in fact capitalism falls to the left of feudalism so this makes such a measure quite relative.


However, it is so authoritarian, that it boarders on fascism.

Well, I would say "Stalinism" is somewhat relative, as you cannot say to what extent anyone will be following the "cult of personality." In this way I see "authoritarian" as a confusing measure and this is partially why I find fault with the political compass.

Fundamentally, the economic and social aspects are interlaced as economics IS a facet of social interaction. This is my major criticism of the PC and why I have developed my own chart.

In this way "the left" is rather skewed and I would put "Stalinism" roughly between the right and left because it is sort of an "establishmentarian" system toward the right, where it's egalitarian motives are questionable, plotting it center to right on my chart.

[Famepollution]

I'm all In man. As long as those Maoists, Stalinists, Juche Socialists, Pol Potist, 3rd positionists, Utupion Socialists, National socialists, National Bolsheviks, Trotskyists, Anarcho-primatists, Green anarchist, Reformists, Deleonists, leninists, Blancists, Titoist, Populists, Meat hating Anarchists, or any of those other filthy faux reds arent there :D :D :lol:


Seriously, you can only unite the left on direct things (like protesting against war) not on in serious principals like post revolution politics.


why were on the subject
(exerp from life of Brian)

Reg: The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
Stan: Yeah, the Judean People's Front.
Reg: Yeah.
Stan: And the Popular Front of Judea.
Reg: Yeah.
Stan: And the People's Front of Judea.
Reg: Yea... what?
Stan: The People's Front of Judea.
Reg: We're the People's Front of Judea!
Stan: I thought we were the Popular Front.
Reg: People's Front!
Francis: What ever happened to the Popular Front?
Reg: He's over there. [points to a lone man]
Reg, Stan, Francis, Judith: SPLITTER!
...
Brian: Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea

[anomaly]

The anticapitalist movement has now reduced itself to only a few major ideologies: communism, socialism, anarchism, environmentalism. Out of these, of course, there are many different sects. But usually, communists will ally with fellow communists, and socialists with fellow socialists, etc. So basically we 3 groups, considering that both the anarchists and the communists want anarcho-communism. I have previously proposed an Anti-Capitalist Party (ACP). This would be a unifying force with one guideline: economic evolution. Economic evolution can lead to the unification of the radical left, which is what we seek. The evolution must be from socialism to world socialism to anarcho-communism with a pro-environment policy (which really should happen quite naturally under socialism). This way we can unite any anarchist, enviro, and Marxist who agrees to these terms. Each is promised their own desired system, and all three really are in favor of anarcho-communism, if it can work. In the party, which will operate as the only party in a socialit state, there will be two divisions: revisionists and radicals/revolutionaries. On the former will be ex-liberals, interested leftists, green reformists, and socialists. On the latter would be radical greens, anarchists and communists. This setup allows for demcoracy within the one party state, since the party is united in only two aspects: a pro-proletarian policy, and the eventuality of anarcho-communism in accordance with economic evolution. I think that a great many anarchists would accept such a plan, if they were promised some power in the new government, and anarchists would be the group potentially most opposed to the idea of state socialism. This may just be a working plan for the unification of the left, as it accounts for the needed alliances during revolution, either political or violent, and also does not alienate any ideology after the revolution. It also leads to a freer national policy, with more ideas accepted, and a less rigid and strict party guideline.

I'm obviously anti-sectarian. Those who are also anti-sectarian, what is your opinion of this idea^? Those who belong to some sect, what is your problem with the idea (perhaps something beyond 'it just wouldn't work')?

[Sa'd al-Bari]

I am strongly opposed to sectarianism. It is a dogmatic way of thinking, and dogmatism is detrimentally opposed to Marxism.

[redstar2000]

Unity on the "Left"? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082988280&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:58 PM
Unity of the working class is not the same thing as unity of the "left".

Most workers are not leftists and most leftists are not workers.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that comrade a cigar!

Seriously, though, I think that the term "sectarian" has been horribly abused over the years by those who equate sectarianism and revolutionary proletarian politics. Sectarianism, as one comrade has already said, is placing narrow organizational interests ahead of the interests of the proletariat. Today, the most common form of sectarianism stems from the purveyors of doctrinaire "revolutionary continuity" -- an uncritical and short-sighted defense of every action taken in the past by this or that predecessor individual or organization.

That said, there are sometimes legitimate, principled reasons for there being separate organizations. For example, if an organization rejects the central role of the proletariat and dilutes its politics into classless appeals to "the people", that would be a legitimate reason for communists to stay as a separate political movement.

Miles

[cph_shawarma]

To say it shortly, "The working class is not weak because it is divided, it is divided because it is weak."

[anomaly]

If we want unity of the working class (which is an impossible task, so we can only hope to gain the loyalty of most of the class), then some sort of Marxist education system must be set up to ensure that the working class is sufficiently educated in Marxist thought. As a class, the working class is the most ignorant and the least revolutionary. That means two things should be clear: the working class must be educated, as previously stated and 2. we cannot confine the movement to the working class alone. We must also include any socialists, communists, anarchists etc. that support our cause. Perhpas neither unity of the left nor unity of the working class is needed, but rather a large amount of socialists, united in their struggle, made up of both groups.

[cph_shawarma]

anomaly: You couldn't be more anti-Marxian. God, I'm tired of all these leninist semi-fascist "marxists" who think they have found the solution to the world's problems and have to "educate" people...

Communism as a movement already exists in the entire class, and nothing you say will change that... God, read some Marx if you plan to base your argument on him.

[Severian]

Unity of the working class is a much broader problem than trying to unite political groups.

There's racism and sexism. The need to combat them and the divisions in the working class produced by 'em.

There's the divisions between workers in different countries.

Divisions between better- and worse-paid workers. And probably the deepest - the division between employed and unemployed workers.

If you're thinking in terms of uniting the working class, that forces you to think in much broader terms than if you're trying to unite these small leftist groups. That's an advantage.

And unity to do what? Unity of action or unity of inaction?

If it's unity of action, it makes sense to work with almost anyone willing to join in a particular kind of action. Trying to unite just leftists or people who already consider themselves socialist or communist or anarchist is far too narrow then.

[bolshevik butcher]

The divide and rule policy of captialism must be defeated.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:31 PM
anomaly: You couldn't be more anti-Marxian. God, I'm tired of all these leninist semi-fascist "marxists" who think they have found the solution to the world's problems and have to "educate" people...

Communism as a movement already exists in the entire class, and nothing you say will change that... God, read some Marx if you plan to base your argument on him.
And so this communist movement you say is already taking place is not and shall not be a Marxist one? I do not think I've solved the world's problems, I am not fascist, so first, get your facts straight. I want the system that replaces capitalism to be socialist, and for this to happen, the proletariat must be educated in what socialism is, and what communism is. In short, I simply want them to educate themselves with the works of Marx. To do this, however, we must supply them and teach them of Marx. Yuo must realize the extreme ignorance of Marxism in this world? You also do not seem to realize that communism must neccesarily evolve out of socialism. There is no communist movement until there is a socialist one. You also do not realize that the working class is generally the least revolutionary of all classes. Marx himself noticed this. Yuo apparently do not. And you know what, I'm tired of the sectarian 'orthodox Marxists' like you who believe that they and only they are Marxists. You only set the movement back with your arrogance.

As for unity, I tend now to think that neither unity of the radical left nor unity of an entire class is possible. As sad as it is, some proletarians are capitalist in their thinking. We cannot count on the entire class, although we can count on most of it. Therefore what we need is not 'unity', but rather a majority. We simply need a large amount of people committed to getting rid of capitalism and establishing socialism. Now, while longterm unity of the radical left proves to be an impossible task, I think that short term unity is quite possible. I propose that the radical left temporarily unites until we have destroyed capitalism in one country, and then the radical left can break up into groups again.

[NovelGentry]

I want the system that replaces capitalism to be socialist, and for this to happen, the proletariat must be educated in what socialism is, and what communism is. In short, I simply want them to educate themselves with the works of Marx.

Unfortunately Marx goes into very little detail on what socialism and communism would look like. In fact, he rarely divides them as we do. Generally speaking he uses the terms rather interchangeably. You'll find a whole lot less talk about socialism in The Communist Manifesto for example. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme you will hear about the "phases of communism" -- to which we relate these early phases to socialism, and the "higher phases" to which Marx applies the maxim, "From each according to...," to communism. But go to some of the base philosophical works or anything Engels had a big hand in and the term is littered about.


Yuo apparently do not. And you know what, I'm tired of the sectarian 'orthodox Marxists' like you who believe that they and only they are Marxists.

No doubt this will apply to me as well.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:03 AM

I want the system that replaces capitalism to be socialist, and for this to happen, the proletariat must be educated in what socialism is, and what communism is. In short, I simply want them to educate themselves with the works of Marx.

Unfortunately Marx goes into very little detail on what socialism and communism would look like. In fact, he rarely divides them as we do. Generally speaking he uses the terms rather interchangeably. You'll find a whole lot less talk about socialism in The Communist Manifesto for example. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme you will hear about the "phases of communism" -- to which we relate these early phases to socialism, and the "higher phases" to which Marx applies the maxim, "From each according to...," to communism. But go to some of the base philosophical works or anything Engels had a big hand in and the term is littered about.


Yuo apparently do not. And you know what, I'm tired of the sectarian 'orthodox Marxists' like you who believe that they and only they are Marxists.

No doubt this will apply to me as well.
Well, actually he does specify that communism is where the state withers away, it is a classless and stateless society. And he does explain that socialism involves economic planning and nationalization. So he does explain these things, although not in much detail, as you correctly say.

You are an orthodox Marxist? That is, you think that Marx was 100% correct? Surely some minor changes should be made to his writngs, no (for example, we can say that some private businesses, as long as they are small, shall be allowed to exist under socialism)? Also, you feel that I am fascist because of my thinking this way? Perhaps it is time to end such bickering between ideologies. The problem with orthodox Marxists is that they are generally rather arrogant, and they are generally opposed to working with Marxists who aren't so orthodox (like me). If you are an orthodox Marxist, are you atleast in favor of the idea of working with fellow socialists and communists, in short working with Marxists who are not orthodox?

[cph_shawarma]

anomaly:

And so this communist movement you say is already taking place is not and shall not be a Marxist one?
Well, it doesn't really matter what people are calling themselves, it's their actions that count. All this bullshit about "anti-sectarianism" just takes the wrong approach. As Marx stated, communism is the really existing movement for the abolition of the present. It is seen in "faceless resistance" (I don't know if this term exists in English) everyday at every workplace, class struggle is ongoing. And every class struggle is a political struggle. Just because people aren't voting for the left fraction of capital, doesn't imply that they are not involved in class struggle every single day.

Since I am a Marxist in the same sense as Marx (that is: not at all) I sincerely don't give a f**k what brand or label people put on themselves, as long as they fight besides me at my workplace. That is the only anti-sectarian road!


Yuo must realize the extreme ignorance of Marxism in this world?
So what? The proles that are more into theory have no more of a desire for communism than those that are not into theory. It is only the practice of the proles that are of importance, even if those of us who are theorists might have a clearer view of the general tendencies of class struggle. You have a leninist (which means you are not willing to break up with capitalism), rather than marxian approach towards struggle.


You also do not seem to realize that communism must neccesarily evolve out of socialism.
No, it does not. Communism is the new way of life that will follow the communist revolution. Socialism is, at best, a way to describe the transition from capitalism to communism. But the dictatorship of the proletariat is a more correct and describing term for the transition.


You only set the movement back with your arrogance.
No, because "the movement" which you speak of is a capitalistic movement only interested in changing the form of capital. The real movement exists among us proles, in my class. I have no need for any petty-bourgeois to come and tell me that I should show up on a bunch of demonstrations or rallies. All this just takes energy from the real class struggle, of which you seem to be quite ignorant.

As I said before, study Marx again. Read him without your leninist goggles. Read him sincerely, and you will find quite a different Marx.

[Donnie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:02 AM
The anticapitalist movement has now reduced itself to only a few major ideologies: communism, socialism, anarchism, environmentalism. Out of these, of course, there are many different sects. But usually, communists will ally with fellow communists, and socialists with fellow socialists, etc. So basically we 3 groups, considering that both the anarchists and the communists want anarcho-communism. I have previously proposed an Anti-Capitalist Party (ACP). This would be a unifying force with one guideline: economic evolution. Economic evolution can lead to the unification of the radical left, which is what we seek. The evolution must be from socialism to world socialism to anarcho-communism with a pro-environment policy (which really should happen quite naturally under socialism). This way we can unite any anarchist, enviro, and Marxist who agrees to these terms. Each is promised their own desired system, and all three really are in favor of anarcho-communism, if it can work. In the party, which will operate as the only party in a socialit state, there will be two divisions: revisionists and radicals/revolutionaries. On the former will be ex-liberals, interested leftists, green reformists, and socialists. On the latter would be radical greens, anarchists and communists. This setup allows for demcoracy within the one party state, since the party is united in only two aspects: a pro-proletarian policy, and the eventuality of anarcho-communism in accordance with economic evolution. I think that a great many anarchists would accept such a plan, if they were promised some power in the new government, and anarchists would be the group potentially most opposed to the idea of state socialism. This may just be a working plan for the unification of the left, as it accounts for the needed alliances during revolution, either political or violent, and also does not alienate any ideology after the revolution. It also leads to a freer national policy, with more ideas accepted, and a less rigid and strict party guideline.

I'm obviously anti-sectarian. Those who are also anti-sectarian, what is your opinion of this idea^? Those who belong to some sect, what is your problem with the idea (perhaps something beyond 'it just wouldn't work')?
At the end of the day you have no chance of uniting the Anarchists into a party. The anarchist critque of the state is that if people get into power they will only be corupted.

I know for a fact im not standing in anything that says "party or state socialism"

[The American Bolshevik]

Hmm.. I see my simple question has spawned into a full-fledge debate. Perhaps from this we should learn, that of course you cannot unite the entire left. We each have different motives and ways of obtaining a goal. But perhaps we could take a little hint from Marx: don't label ourselves.

We are all comrades working for the betterment of the proletariat. That makes us communists, comrades, and proletarians. Not Marxist, Leninist, Marxist-Leninist, or the several sub-divisions popping up.

If we are working towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are simply communists. Plane and simply.

PS: Nice slogan, Donnie. "Tax the rich not the poor! One solution: class war!"

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:43 PM
I want the system that replaces capitalism to be socialist, and for this to happen, the proletariat must be educated in what socialism is, and what communism is. In short, I simply want them to educate themselves with the works of Marx. To do this, however, we must supply them and teach them of Marx.
Nah. I mean, I'm all for producing, distributing, discussing the works of Marx. Explaining his ideas to as many people as possible.

But if you think everyone must understand the theory before a socialist revolution, you're wrong. That hasn't been the case in any past revolution. And it isn't practically attainable under capitalist rule.

Socialism flows from the interests and struggles of the working class; people learn the need for it in practice from the experience of a revolution.


You also do not realize that the working class is generally the least revolutionary of all classes. Marx himself noticed this.

What? No. On the contrary, he said the working class was the only revolutionary class. Read the Manifesto. And I have to agree with him - other classes have proved revolutionary only to the extent that they share interests with the working class, or occasional individuals from other classes give their allegiance to the working class.


We cannot count on the entire class, although we can count on most of it. Therefore what we need is not 'unity', but rather a majority. We simply need a large amount of people committed to getting rid of capitalism and establishing socialism.

This seems a quibble over words. Uniting a majority of the working class would be a much larger degree of unity than exists now. Nobody has suggested that it would be possible to unite 100%.


Now, while longterm unity of the radical left proves to be an impossible task, I think that short term unity is quite possible. I propose that the radical left temporarily unites until we have destroyed capitalism in one country, and then the radical left can break up into groups again.

There is no agreement over how, or in practice whether to destroy capitalism either.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:52 AM
. As Marx stated, communism is the really existing movement for the abolition of the present. It is seen in "faceless resistance" (I don't know if this term exists in English) everyday at every workplace, class struggle is ongoing. And every class struggle is a political struggle. Just because people aren't voting for the left fraction of capital, doesn't imply that they are not involved in class struggle every single day.

Since I am a Marxist in the same sense as Marx (that is: not at all) I sincerely don't give a f**k what brand or label people put on themselves, as long as they fight besides me at my workplace. That is the only anti-sectarian road!
Right on.


You have a leninist (which means you are not willing to break up with capitalism), rather than marxian approach towards struggle.

I don't think Anomaly's approach is remotely similar to Lenin's.


Socialism is, at best, a way to describe the transition from capitalism to communism. But the dictatorship of the proletariat is a more correct and describing term for the transition.

IMO those are different things. Socialism implies a classless society, though still with "to each according to their abilities" and bourgeois distribution; and the state not having withered away yet.

Edit:

It is only the practice of the proles that are of importance, even if those of us who are theorists might have a clearer view of the general tendencies of class struggle.
....
I have no need for any petty-bourgeois to come and tell me that I should show up on a bunch of demonstrations or rallies.

I don't agree on these points. Practice is the most important thing (actions speak louder), but not the only important thing...having a "a clearer view of the general tendencies of class struggle" is also important.

And I agree that the most important class struggle going on nowadays, in most countries anyway, is in workplaces, strikes, etc....but it's not the only thing of importance. "Social issues" and opposition to imperialism and its wars are also imporant and shouldn't solely be dismissed as "petty-bourgeois to come and tell me that I should show up on a bunch of demonstrations or rallies".

[Severian]

Originally posted by The American [email protected] 6 2005, 04:24 AM
If we are working towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are simply communists. Plane and simply.
I agree.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Socialism implies a classless society, though still with "to each according to their abilities" and bourgeois distribution; and the state not having withered away yet.[/b]

Severian, meet Bob Avakian. :D


Avakian
And there will always be in one form or another political representatives; despite all the science fiction and everything else, I do not believe that the highest level that can be achieved is where everybody puts on their TV, listens to a big debate and pushes a computer, yes or no, up or down, kill ’em, throw ’em out, make ’em president or whatever; I don’t believe that’s the way that decision-making is going to be done under communism. There will be political representatives and struggle among them, and the masses will be decisive, yes, but not in the literal, direct, good old town meeting tradition.

I think you gentlemen will get along very well together.

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Donnie+Jun 6 2005, 09:28 AM--> (Donnie @ Jun 6 2005, 09:28 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 05:02 AM
The anticapitalist movement has now reduced itself to only a few major ideologies: communism, socialism, anarchism, environmentalism. Out of these, of course, there are many different sects. But usually, communists will ally with fellow communists, and socialists with fellow socialists, etc. So basically we 3 groups, considering that both the anarchists and the communists want anarcho-communism. I have previously proposed an Anti-Capitalist Party (ACP). This would be a unifying force with one guideline: economic evolution. Economic evolution can lead to the unification of the radical left, which is what we seek. The evolution must be from socialism to world socialism to anarcho-communism with a pro-environment policy (which really should happen quite naturally under socialism). This way we can unite any anarchist, enviro, and Marxist who agrees to these terms. Each is promised their own desired system, and all three really are in favor of anarcho-communism, if it can work. In the party, which will operate as the only party in a socialit state, there will be two divisions: revisionists and radicals/revolutionaries. On the former will be ex-liberals, interested leftists, green reformists, and socialists. On the latter would be radical greens, anarchists and communists. This setup allows for demcoracy within the one party state, since the party is united in only two aspects: a pro-proletarian policy, and the eventuality of anarcho-communism in accordance with economic evolution. I think that a great many anarchists would accept such a plan, if they were promised some power in the new government, and anarchists would be the group potentially most opposed to the idea of state socialism. This may just be a working plan for the unification of the left, as it accounts for the needed alliances during revolution, either political or violent, and also does not alienate any ideology after the revolution. It also leads to a freer national policy, with more ideas accepted, and a less rigid and strict party guideline.

I'm obviously anti-sectarian. Those who are also anti-sectarian, what is your opinion of this idea^? Those who belong to some sect, what is your problem with the idea (perhaps something beyond 'it just wouldn't work')?
At the end of the day you have no chance of uniting the Anarchists into a party. The anarchist critque of the state is that if people get into power they will only be corupted.

I know for a fact im not standing in anything that says "party or state socialism" [/b]
If not state socialism than what? Communism wihtin a capitalist world? Surely you jest! Socialism is an advance for all of society, and for any country. The anarchists must realize this, and in times of socialist revolution, they must work as comrades, not enemies. Also, I have abandoned the idea of a unified party. I see soem major flaws. But I am hopeful that leftists can unite around a revolution, even if they will argue amongst each other afterwards. That is, can all comrades be supportive of socialist revolution?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 08:52 AM
anomaly:

And so this communist movement you say is already taking place is not and shall not be a Marxist one?
Well, it doesn't really matter what people are calling themselves, it's their actions that count. All this bullshit about "anti-sectarianism" just takes the wrong approach. As Marx stated, communism is the really existing movement for the abolition of the present. It is seen in "faceless resistance" (I don't know if this term exists in English) everyday at every workplace, class struggle is ongoing. And every class struggle is a political struggle. Just because people aren't voting for the left fraction of capital, doesn't imply that they are not involved in class struggle every single day.

Since I am a Marxist in the same sense as Marx (that is: not at all) I sincerely don't give a f**k what brand or label people put on themselves, as long as they fight besides me at my workplace. That is the only anti-sectarian road!


Yuo must realize the extreme ignorance of Marxism in this world?
So what? The proles that are more into theory have no more of a desire for communism than those that are not into theory. It is only the practice of the proles that are of importance, even if those of us who are theorists might have a clearer view of the general tendencies of class struggle. You have a leninist (which means you are not willing to break up with capitalism), rather than marxian approach towards struggle.


You also do not seem to realize that communism must neccesarily evolve out of socialism.
No, it does not. Communism is the new way of life that will follow the communist revolution. Socialism is, at best, a way to describe the transition from capitalism to communism. But the dictatorship of the proletariat is a more correct and describing term for the transition.


You only set the movement back with your arrogance.
No, because "the movement" which you speak of is a capitalistic movement only interested in changing the form of capital. The real movement exists among us proles, in my class. I have no need for any petty-bourgeois to come and tell me that I should show up on a bunch of demonstrations or rallies. All this just takes energy from the real class struggle, of which you seem to be quite ignorant.

As I said before, study Marx again. Read him without your leninist goggles. Read him sincerely, and you will find quite a different Marx.
Ah, you seem not so tubborn as I first imagined. Your simply practical. I compliment you, comrade.

On your idea of the only sectarian road, hell yes! That's a broad, but the most fundamental and basic type of sect within the Marxist movement. In fact, if you aren't on the sectarian road of helping the proletariat, your simply against our cause.

Wait, wait, how am I Leninist? Because I advocate socialism? Please explain yourself here, comrade.

Of course socialism is transitionary, but it is a transitionary system, not simply the rule of one class. Socialism is absolutely neccesary, since no world revolution is possible. And because no world revolution is possible, and state must be able to trade and have relations with capitalist states. The only way to do this is with socialism.

Well, apparently I am Leninist to you if you think that communism can arise out of capitalism! Communism arises out of socialism. And yes, we must change the form of capital before we destroy it. Again, socialism. So you apparently do not push for a socialist state, in this sense you are not practical. You push for a communist revolution, that will establish a classless, moneyless society? And this will not be a global thing, but rather a concentrated communism? Am I correct here? Again, please explain yourself.

Also, don't assume I'm petty bourgeois here. I'm likely in the same class as you. I live in poverty, and that is part of the reason I'm a socialist. It's nonsense to think that fellow proletarians are also anti-socialist, like you. I am hardly ignorant of the 'real' class struggle, I simply want to advance that struggle. Anti-socialist tactics do not advance the struggle.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 7 2005, 01:38 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 7 2005, 01:38 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Socialism implies a classless society, though still with "to each according to their abilities" and bourgeois distribution; and the state not having withered away yet.

Severian, meet Bob Avakian. :D


Avakian
And there will always be in one form or another political representatives; despite all the science fiction and everything else, I do not believe that the highest level that can be achieved is where everybody puts on their TV, listens to a big debate and pushes a computer, yes or no, up or down, kill ’em, throw ’em out, make ’em president or whatever; I don’t believe that’s the way that decision-making is going to be done under communism. There will be political representatives and struggle among them, and the masses will be decisive, yes, but not in the literal, direct, good old town meeting tradition.

I think you gentlemen will get along very well together.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Redstar, who is Bob Avakian? Just tell me his basic beliefs, please. Also, are you a fellow critic of this 'classless' socialism nonsense?

[Holocaustpulp]

"Now, what is your opinion on this and please tell us whether you are anti-sectarian or a member of the sects of Communism such as Marxist-Leninism, Moaism, Trotskyism, etc."

I consider myself a Marxist yielding to Leninism (I am in a period of decision concerning Lenin's Bolshevism concerning the party). I am open to any argument that I see as logical, and for me this most likely seems to be Trotskyism.

I do outright oppose Stalinism because I believe it is anti-Marxist while waving the socialist flag. Maoism isn't Marxist yet I do not approve of its repressive nature.

Factions do seem petty among us socialists, yet there is does not seem to be a true compromise between doctrinaire sects. This is our ultimate predicament. I say the solution is accpeting all under a MARXIST banner - this means tolerating the anarchists, Stalinsts, etc., but ultimately guiding them to Marxist socialism.

- Holocaustpulp

[kurt]

Originally posted by anomaly+Jun 7 2005, 04:14 AM--> (anomaly @ Jun 7 2005, 04:14 AM)
Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 7 2005, 01:38 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 7 2005, 01:38 AM)
[email protected]
Socialism implies a classless society, though still with "to each according to their abilities" and bourgeois distribution; and the state not having withered away yet.

Severian, meet Bob Avakian. :D


Avakian
And there will always be in one form or another political representatives; despite all the science fiction and everything else, I do not believe that the highest level that can be achieved is where everybody puts on their TV, listens to a big debate and pushes a computer, yes or no, up or down, kill ’em, throw ’em out, make ’em president or whatever; I don’t believe that’s the way that decision-making is going to be done under communism. There will be political representatives and struggle among them, and the masses will be decisive, yes, but not in the literal, direct, good old town meeting tradition.

I think you gentlemen will get along very well together.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Redstar, who is Bob Avakian? Just tell me his basic beliefs, please. Also, are you a fellow critic of this 'classless' socialism nonsense? [/b]
Bob Avakian is the Chairman of the RCP-USA. They're a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party. Most of his followers tend to quote him quite often, and to me, they seem almost cult-like.

I'm also glad to hear that you realized the problems associated with attempting to create a unified leftist party. While it's true we are all against capitalism, unfortunately this is where our similarities tend to end.

[anomaly]

So, to the entire forum, what about an anti-capitalist alliance to, as holocaust puts it, lead to Marxist socialism. But HP, a question for you, do you support the idea of equal wages under socialism? If so, I'd like to discuss the matter with you.

Does Bob Avakian support the idea of 'classless' socialism?

[redstar2000]

Bob is Chairman of the Revolutionary "Communist" Party in the United States...a Leninist-Maoist party with several hundred members, some bookstores, a weekly newspaper, etc.

There are quite a few threads on this board about him and the RCP (and quite a few collections on my site. :P).

Socialism, in the Leninist tradition is, of course, a class society with all the features of one.

Communism is a classless society (that means it has no state apparatus).

It's long been my contention that Leninists don't really want communism...they really want socialism.

That is, a society where there is a vital role for them to play...as rulers!

I was quite surprised to see Avakian admit openly that his "communism" would never permit direct working-class self-government.

Severian's assertion that socialism "implies classlessness" is, I think, of a piece with Avakian's admission.

The motivation in both cases, in my opinion, is to redefine the terminology in such a way as to preserve indefinitely a class society while calling it something else.

That's some rather nifty political footwork there...and it will be interesting to see "who will buy"?

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 10:32 PM
Socialism, in the Leninist tradition is, of course, a class society with all the features of one.

No. The definition of socialism as a class society is Stalinist, not Leninist. How it is an "admission" for me to say, as authentic communists always have, that socialism is a classless society, or what that Avakian quote has to do with anything, I have no idea.

I define socialism the same way Marx described "the lower phase of communism" in the Gotha Programme. With the abolition of classes, the state begins to wither away, and bourgeois "equal right" in distribution begins to be outmoded, but this is not instant; so the abolition of classes is not the same as full, higher phase, communism.


The motivation in both cases, in my opinion, is to redefine the terminology in such a way as to preserve indefinitely a class society while calling it something else.


That statement could be better applied to those who sought to pretty up class-divided societies and apparatchik privilege by falsely calling them socialist. (And, additionally, falsely claim to have done the impossible, build socialism in one country.) Your logic is upside-down.

Encyclopedia of Marxism: Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism)

Encyclopedia of Marxism: Communism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism)

Has all the relevant Marx and Lenin quotes. Should be enough to show, at least, that there is no theoretical innovation on my part.

[Raisa]

Should we be seperated by ideas?

If you got a reason for it, by all means dont repeat someone else's shit.

Youre still a communist none the less, and for us- the liberation of the working class is FIRST..and the power and dignity of the working people are first, so we need to work together for that when we can.

Dont be so secterian that you forget what youre really about beneath it all. The people.

Most of our best work is done on platforms more then parties, because we are stronger when we are together.

[anomaly]

I define myself as a socialist, because that, I feel, is what we must first fight for. I do however wish to attain world communism, but I think any state communism is impossible. State socialism, which is a society of class still (the main facets in my ideas on socialism are economic production planning done on a local level by the workers themselves, with a democratic government, thereby giving the proletariat new economic and political power, but still allowing capitalists a higher income than the proletariat. The goal is for everyone to receive a living wage, and this will be accomplished through redistributive policies). I'm sure some of you would call that idea of socialism 'unacceptable' and reform minded. But it does allow for the advancement of the proletariat as a class, with their new power. From there, we can make socialism spread until we have world socialism. Only when we have a committed world can we advance to communism, since no one nation is self sufficient. What are your ideas on socialism and communism, everyone? I'm rather interested to know.

[The American Bolshevik]

I think, as Raisa said, Communists need to take a step back from their certain school of Communism and ask a simple question:

"What are we fighting for?"

When you realise, that you all come up with the same answer - the workers - then, and only then, will a revolution and social advancement be possible.

[cph_shawarma]

On your idea of the only sectarian road, hell yes! That's a broad, but the most fundamental and basic type of sect within the Marxist movement. In fact, if you aren't on the sectarian road of helping the proletariat, your simply against our cause.
I am not interested in "helping the proletariat" (what has this to do with communism?). I am interested in the liberation of humanity. The only available social factor to perpetuate such a task is the proles, including myself. No party, no union, no organisation will ever do the task of the proletariat for us (more so since these organisations are mere fractions of capital). We have to do it ourselves, which is fundamental to Karl Marx's thought.


Of course socialism is transitionary, but it is a transitionary system, not simply the rule of one class. Socialism is absolutely neccesary, since no world revolution is possible. And because no world revolution is possible, and state must be able to trade and have relations with capitalist states. The only way to do this is with socialism.
Socialism is another form of capitalism, which I will never fight for. I am anti-socialist, I'm communist. World revolution is definitely possible, or else we're screwed. What arguments do you pose against world revolution? Again, the overthrow of capital can only be the work of a unified and authoritarian proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat).


Well, apparently I am Leninist to you if you think that communism can arise out of capitalism! Communism arises out of socialism.
You couldn't be more wrong. Communism has arisen inside capital since its birth in different forms. Today we have pirated mp3s, warez et.c. which is the most obvious form of (partial) negation of capital and creating a new way of distribution. I am not aware of any similar in the area of production, but it certainly exists there. Why do we need socialism? Why do we need another form of capitalism?


You push for a communist revolution, that will establish a classless, moneyless society? And this will not be a global thing, but rather a concentrated communism? Am I correct here? Again, please explain yourself.
The actions of the proletariat when it attacks itself as constituted by class, it attacks the very existence of classes. A communist revolution is when the proletariat uses unified and authoritarian action (the dictatorship of the proletariat) to abolish itself and classes altogether. This must establish a new social order, where the commodity form no longer exists. Of course this will not happen over night, but the communist revolution is the entire existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proles knows no boundaries and this must happen on a global scale (or most importantly in the center of capitalist countries, the West) otherwise it will definitely suffer the consequences.


Also, don't assume I'm petty bourgeois here. I'm likely in the same class as you. I live in poverty, and that is part of the reason I'm a socialist. It's nonsense to think that fellow proletarians are also anti-socialist, like you. I am hardly ignorant of the 'real' class struggle, I simply want to advance that struggle. Anti-socialist tactics do not advance the struggle.
I'm not assuming you're petty bourgeois, I'm simply saying that me and my class needs no pointers from people who think they know better. Class abolition rise as a collective process of the working class at a company, in a territory and ultimately the unified action of the global proletariat. I'm not saying it will be easy, I'm saying it will be the only road that will indeed abolish the way we currently live. Since you probably have a different view of "class struggle" we probably don't mean the same thing when we talk about "class struggle". This is also why you draw anti-communist conclusions, and I draw communist conclusions. Anti-leftism is definitely a part of a successful communist tactic, since leftism always results in apology of capital and the want to change the form of capital without dealing with its content.

[cph_shawarma]

Originally posted by The American [email protected] 8 2005, 11:20 AM
I think, as Raisa said, Communists need to take a step back from their certain school of Communism and ask a simple question:

"What are we fighting for?"

When you realise, that you all come up with the same answer - the workers - then, and only then, will a revolution and social advancement be possible.
If you are fighting for the workers, you are anti-communist in practice. A communist workers' movement can't be based on some random people representing them, it must be based on the collective self-activity of the proletariat. Basic Marx.

[cph_shawarma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:34 AM
That statement could be better applied to those who sought to pretty up class-divided societies and apparatchik privilege by falsely calling them socialist. (And, additionally, falsely claim to have done the impossible, build socialism in one country.) Your logic is upside-down.
This is exactly what ideological leftists (including social democrats, leninists, maoists, various types of "marxists") are. They want to pretty up the system by "giving the people economic democracy", "collectively owned factories", "fair wages" etc. etc.

The revolutionary approach must be to attack the very foundation of capital, the commodity. This can not be done by parties or the likes.

[The American Bolshevik]

Anti-communist? Calling that amongst your own comrades is rather vile and disgusting. Marx wanted to form a workers' democracy, a democracy ran by the proletariat. That would advance to an anarchic utopia.

Now, unless you're interests are in dictorial and tyrannical rule, you may want to re-think where your loyalties lie: the proletariat, or the liberal petty-bourgeoisie.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:10 PM

On your idea of the only sectarian road, hell yes! That's a broad, but the most fundamental and basic type of sect within the Marxist movement. In fact, if you aren't on the sectarian road of helping the proletariat, your simply against our cause.
I am not interested in "helping the proletariat" (what has this to do with communism?). I am interested in the liberation of humanity. The only available social factor to perpetuate such a task is the proles, including myself. No party, no union, no organisation will ever do the task of the proletariat for us (more so since these organisations are mere fractions of capital). We have to do it ourselves, which is fundamental to Karl Marx's thought.


Of course socialism is transitionary, but it is a transitionary system, not simply the rule of one class. Socialism is absolutely neccesary, since no world revolution is possible. And because no world revolution is possible, and state must be able to trade and have relations with capitalist states. The only way to do this is with socialism.
Socialism is another form of capitalism, which I will never fight for. I am anti-socialist, I'm communist. World revolution is definitely possible, or else we're screwed. What arguments do you pose against world revolution? Again, the overthrow of capital can only be the work of a unified and authoritarian proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat).


Well, apparently I am Leninist to you if you think that communism can arise out of capitalism! Communism arises out of socialism.
You couldn't be more wrong. Communism has arisen inside capital since its birth in different forms. Today we have pirated mp3s, warez et.c. which is the most obvious form of (partial) negation of capital and creating a new way of distribution. I am not aware of any similar in the area of production, but it certainly exists there. Why do we need socialism? Why do we need another form of capitalism?


You push for a communist revolution, that will establish a classless, moneyless society? And this will not be a global thing, but rather a concentrated communism? Am I correct here? Again, please explain yourself.
The actions of the proletariat when it attacks itself as constituted by class, it attacks the very existence of classes. A communist revolution is when the proletariat uses unified and authoritarian action (the dictatorship of the proletariat) to abolish itself and classes altogether. This must establish a new social order, where the commodity form no longer exists. Of course this will not happen over night, but the communist revolution is the entire existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proles knows no boundaries and this must happen on a global scale (or most importantly in the center of capitalist countries, the West) otherwise it will definitely suffer the consequences.


Also, don't assume I'm petty bourgeois here. I'm likely in the same class as you. I live in poverty, and that is part of the reason I'm a socialist. It's nonsense to think that fellow proletarians are also anti-socialist, like you. I am hardly ignorant of the 'real' class struggle, I simply want to advance that struggle. Anti-socialist tactics do not advance the struggle.
I'm not assuming you're petty bourgeois, I'm simply saying that me and my class needs no pointers from people who think they know better. Class abolition rise as a collective process of the working class at a company, in a territory and ultimately the unified action of the global proletariat. I'm not saying it will be easy, I'm saying it will be the only road that will indeed abolish the way we currently live. Since you probably have a different view of "class struggle" we probably don't mean the same thing when we talk about "class struggle". This is also why you draw anti-communist conclusions, and I draw communist conclusions. Anti-leftism is definitely a part of a successful communist tactic, since leftism always results in apology of capital and the want to change the form of capital without dealing with its content.
How do you propose a world revolution will happen? Face some simple reality, please, that the communit movement today is ismply not that strong. Rach capitalist countries will fight you if you start a communist revolution, therefore no world revolution can happen militarily. So it cannot be violent. Basically, you'll need to simply have the proletariat (well, wait, your not fighting for the proletariat), correct that, all of mankind begin to oppose capitalism, and have a collective process of abolishing the old system. Ten, with this new global human collective, you'll destroy all states, since communism has no state, and begin communism. Yuo thinking is far too utopian for me. The reality is that humanity worldwide won't simply one day wake up and decide to oppose capitalism. Several displaced revolutionary movements do oppose capitalism, and for these movements to succeed, socialism must be their goal. A communist country is an impossibility. Only socialism offers the means to act within a capitalist world. I am a socialist first, and I am for the advancement of the proletariat as a clas, and I cannot believe you oppose advancing this class. Instead you have the utopian idea of 'liberating mankind' from their chains of capital. Where is this worldwide, all-encompassing communist movement? It is apparently invisible. Socialist movements are material, and suvch movements will result in helping the proletariat in this world. I will continue to fight for state socialism, and I'll leave you with your utopian dreams of a world communist revolution. Socialism is a prerequisite for communism, that's all there is to it.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by The American [email protected] 9 2005, 02:08 AM
Anti-communist? Calling that amongst your own comrades is rather vile and disgusting. Marx wanted to form a workers' democracy, a democracy ran by the proletariat. That would advance to an anarchic utopia.

Now, unless you're interests are in dictorial and tyrannical rule, you may want to re-think where your loyalties lie: the proletariat, or the liberal petty-bourgeoisie.
The problem is that shawarma doesn't realize that socialists are his comrades. He is anti-socialist and against helping the workers of the world. Rather, he has taken on the utopian task of 'liberating mankind', without soicalism.

[cph_shawarma]

anomaly & American Bolshevik:
No, I haven't taken on the task of liberating humanity. That is a collective action of the proletariat, not my individual doing. It is not utopian and perhaps both of you should actually read Marx before you base your arguments on him. Socialists aren't my comrades, the proles in the real communist movement are my comrades. Socialists may be part of this movement, but the more active they are in communist activity they are, they become less socialist (left-capitalist) in action.

I'm not interested in helping workers, we can do it ourselves. I don't need any petty-bourgeois sympathies or pseudointellectual companions. All that is needed is a trust in the (potential) strength of the proletariat and the active participation in the real communist movement.

[cph_shawarma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:26 AM
How do you propose a world revolution will happen? Face some simple reality, please, that the communit movement today is ismply not that strong. Rach capitalist countries will fight you if you start a communist revolution, therefore no world revolution can happen militarily. So it cannot be violent. Basically, you'll need to simply have the proletariat (well, wait, your not fighting for the proletariat), correct that, all of mankind begin to oppose capitalism, and have a collective process of abolishing the old system. Ten, with this new global human collective, you'll destroy all states, since communism has no state, and begin communism. Yuo thinking is far too utopian for me. The reality is that humanity worldwide won't simply one day wake up and decide to oppose capitalism. Several displaced revolutionary movements do oppose capitalism, and for these movements to succeed, socialism must be their goal. A communist country is an impossibility. Only socialism offers the means to act within a capitalist world. I am a socialist first, and I am for the advancement of the proletariat as a clas, and I cannot believe you oppose advancing this class. Instead you have the utopian idea of 'liberating mankind' from their chains of capital. Where is this worldwide, all-encompassing communist movement? It is apparently invisible. Socialist movements are material, and suvch movements will result in helping the proletariat in this world. I will continue to fight for state socialism, and I'll leave you with your utopian dreams of a world communist revolution. Socialism is a prerequisite for communism, that's all there is to it.
Of course the real movement of the proletariat (the communist movement) is not strong enough to overthrow capitalism today, otherwise it would already be overthrown. Duh. You take the current position of the proletariat and identify it as a permanent state, which couldn't be more ahistoric.

I'm not in a position to decide whether the revolution "will be" violent or not, it is a simple historic fact that the proletariat will have to be authoritarian and use coercion and violence to be successful.

No, I'm not fighting for (representing) the proletariat, I'm fighting with the proletariat. Stop making a fool of yourself.

No, the global proletariat won't wake up one day and oppose capitalism, where have I said that? As it is a collective process, it will probably begin in the atoms of society and spread in a process. You're not thinking in processes, you're thinking of "events", which is opposed to Marxian thought and dialectics.

I'm not talking about ideological movements in parties, unions or other sectarian organisations. I'm talking about the real, material movement that Marx investigated, the spontaneous communist self-activity of the proletariat. This needs to be evolved, of course. But always and everywhere you philanthropists and world improvers have found "the way" and totally ignore the social movements of the really existing world.

Yes, most of class struggle is "invisible" (that is, not mediated by organisations). Since socialism is out to "help the proletariat" it is anti-communist. Communism is based on the self-activity and self-liberation of the proletariat.

I'm not utopian, but what you counterpose to capitalism is simply another form of capitalism, therefore you are anti-communist in action!

[The American Bolshevik]

No, CPH, I think you need to stop repeating some neo-con and read Marx. Without socialism, there cannot be an evolution to communism. Just like without capitalism, there can't be an advancement to socialism.

But some anarchists you can't talk to. (No offense to anarchists. I know many close friends who are anarchists. This previous comment was not meant to undermind them.)

And petty-bourgeoisie? When you get police stomping at your door for comments on your political views... Bah.. Nevermind, it's not worth argueing with the ignorant. Only they can help themselves.

[cph_shawarma]

Originally posted by The American [email protected] 9 2005, 06:01 PM
No, CPH, I think you need to stop repeating some neo-con and read Marx. Without socialism, there cannot be an evolution to communism. Just like without capitalism, there can't be an advancement to socialism.

But some anarchists you can't talk to. (No offense to anarchists. I know many close friends who are anarchists. This previous comment was not meant to undermind them.)

And petty-bourgeoisie? When you get police stomping at your door for comments on your political views... Bah.. Nevermind, it's not worth argueing with the ignorant. Only they can help themselves.
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." Karl Marx, German Ideology

"In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto

"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism." Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto

"The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice." Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach

"A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
[...]
The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat." Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto (my emphasis)

Enough with the quotes. You are deeply dug into the ideology of historical materialism, which Karl Marx denounces in a letter to Ostjetvennyje Zapinsky and a preface to the 2nd Russian Edition of the Communist Manifesto in 1882. Please read this and you will hopefully rid yourself of superhistoric ideology.

Anarchists may sometimes be part of the real communist movement and then I will work with them, as I would with any prole no matter his "political" opinions. Otherwise anarchists are quite lost in their own ideology, as many self-announced "marxists".

What do you mean with the statement on the police? If they come stomping and asking me what my opinions are I would do like any reasonable person and deny any connection to communism. Then I would work even more eagerly to advance the proletariat's tendency towards communism. I agree, it's not worth argueing with the ignorant and in this debate it's you!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:43 AM
anomaly & American Bolshevik:
No, I haven't taken on the task of liberating humanity. That is a collective action of the proletariat, not my individual doing. It is not utopian and perhaps both of you should actually read Marx before you base your arguments on him. Socialists aren't my comrades, the proles in the real communist movement are my comrades. Socialists may be part of this movement, but the more active they are in communist activity they are, they become less socialist (left-capitalist) in action.

I'm not interested in helping workers, we can do it ourselves. I don't need any petty-bourgeois sympathies or pseudointellectual companions. All that is needed is a trust in the (potential) strength of the proletariat and the active participation in the real communist movement.
This is denying the principle of leadership. Name for me one successful movement that 1. was simply spontaneous, as yours must be and 2. had no leader, but simply a mass of like minded, totally committed individuals. There is none. What you are trying to do is to unify the proletariat worldwide. Not just the proletariat of a nation, but a world. And that, my friend, is extremely utopian thinking. And I suppose I can stop calling you 'comrade' as you hav repeatedly said you are anti-socialist. A communist who is anti-socialist! And your telling me to read some Marx, oh scholar you? Marx made it clear that socialism is a transitional stage towards communism. And here you are declaring yourself boldly an anti-socialist!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by cph_shawarma+Jun 9 2005, 07:58 AM--> (cph_shawarma @ Jun 9 2005, 07:58 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 05:26 AM
How do you propose a world revolution will happen? Face some simple reality, please, that the communit movement today is ismply not that strong. Rach capitalist countries will fight you if you start a communist revolution, therefore no world revolution can happen militarily. So it cannot be violent. Basically, you'll need to simply have the proletariat (well, wait, your not fighting for the proletariat), correct that, all of mankind begin to oppose capitalism, and have a collective process of abolishing the old system. Ten, with this new global human collective, you'll destroy all states, since communism has no state, and begin communism. Yuo thinking is far too utopian for me. The reality is that humanity worldwide won't simply one day wake up and decide to oppose capitalism. Several displaced revolutionary movements do oppose capitalism, and for these movements to succeed, socialism must be their goal. A communist country is an impossibility. Only socialism offers the means to act within a capitalist world. I am a socialist first, and I am for the advancement of the proletariat as a clas, and I cannot believe you oppose advancing this class. Instead you have the utopian idea of 'liberating mankind' from their chains of capital. Where is this worldwide, all-encompassing communist movement? It is apparently invisible. Socialist movements are material, and suvch movements will result in helping the proletariat in this world. I will continue to fight for state socialism, and I'll leave you with your utopian dreams of a world communist revolution. Socialism is a prerequisite for communism, that's all there is to it.
Of course the real movement of the proletariat (the communist movement) is not strong enough to overthrow capitalism today, otherwise it would already be overthrown. Duh. You take the current position of the proletariat and identify it as a permanent state, which couldn't be more ahistoric.

I'm not in a position to decide whether the revolution "will be" violent or not, it is a simple historic fact that the proletariat will have to be authoritarian and use coercion and violence to be successful.

No, I'm not fighting for (representing) the proletariat, I'm fighting with the proletariat. Stop making a fool of yourself.

No, the global proletariat won't wake up one day and oppose capitalism, where have I said that? As it is a collective process, it will probably begin in the atoms of society and spread in a process. You're not thinking in processes, you're thinking of "events", which is opposed to Marxian thought and dialectics.

I'm not talking about ideological movements in parties, unions or other sectarian organisations. I'm talking about the real, material movement that Marx investigated, the spontaneous communist self-activity of the proletariat. This needs to be evolved, of course. But always and everywhere you philanthropists and world improvers have found "the way" and totally ignore the social movements of the really existing world.

Yes, most of class struggle is "invisible" (that is, not mediated by organisations). Since socialism is out to "help the proletariat" it is anti-communist. Communism is based on the self-activity and self-liberation of the proletariat.

I'm not utopian, but what you counterpose to capitalism is simply another form of capitalism, therefore you are anti-communist in action! [/b]
And so you somehow propose that the proletariat, worldwide mind you, will break their chains and spontaneously revolt? Yes, that is very likely....now let's move back to reality, shall we? The revolt will not be worldwide, it simply can't be. Too many powerful nations have already invested too much in the system to let it slip away. The USA and other powerful nations would gladly repel the proletariat to ensure the survival of capitalism. But, a revolt in one country, and then the neccesary setting up of socialism would not be so strongly opposed by powerful capitalist nations. This is not to mention the problem of 'uniting' the proletariat as a class. Yuo do understand that currently, a large part of the proletariat aren't even leftists, let alone utopian communsts, and would surely oppose your proposed world revoltuion.

Yuo have just decided that your revoltuion will be violent. I do not disagree with you, any world revoltuion would have to be fought violently. But you do not understand the impossibility of such a task. You'd have to arm billions of people, and unite them in their hatred of the current system, which a large majrity of them simply do not understand. So now you have a leaderless mass fighting against a system they don't understand in order to attain another system, communism, they don't likely understand. And this, on top of the huge strategic tasks you face, such as fighting head to head with the finest armies in the world.

Ah, so I am making a fool of myself. Yuo know, I'd believe you if you could provide a list of the billions of fellow proletarians who have likely joined your noble cause. Oh wait, that's right, you're no leader, therefore you really aren't allowed to convince people to go along with you, or have them fight 'your' cause at all. Every person within this mass simply happens to want the exact same thing as you do. But even so, surely you could provide me with some type of verification that this grand communist revolution is in fact taking place, or atleast you know of several committed communists, right?

So what process to you propose using to defeat the entire capitalsit world? So what you propose is that some communists will begin openly opposing capitalists, and that these few will gain fellow communists, that it will spread like wildfire? Again, what processes exactly are you referring to? And no, I suppose I am deeply anti-Maxian to such an orthodox thinker as you, as I think in terms of practicality, and let me be the first to tell you, what you propose is not practical at all, especially since you oppose leadership as well as any national (not global) socialist movements.

Didn't you just say your movement won't be spontaneous? And no, it is not I who am ignoring and in fact denouncing the social movements of the real world. There is no one communist movement, I'm sorry to tell you. There are, however, several socialist movement taking place throughout the world. I support these movements fully, while you oppose them, since you are anti-socialist. And since you are anti-socialist, you will neccesarily oppose any movement within the confines of the state, and will only be accepting of a movement that is without a state, but rather is a worldwide class movement. Again, the lack of practicality of such a position is inarguable.

Did it ever occur to you that the proletariat is not only helped but involved directly in socialism? Socialism means that the forces of production are nationalized. This means that since the factory becomes owned by the state, the individual proletarian will become an integral part of socialist society. The proletriat, by extension, are socialism. Without the proletariat, there is no socialism. And again, you propose that the proletariat will liberate themselves, with no leader, with no common ideology, and with not much general knowledge of the system they oppose. How can a mostly divided mass achieve anything worthwhile? What will happen under your plan (well, actually you seem to oppose plans) will be massive failure, and you will not be defeated by the bourgeoisie, but rather your movement, with no leader and massive divisions within it, will simply crumble over time.

And yes, you are utopian, and not only that, but very strictly orthodox Marxian in your thinking. How do you expect to unify the world when many in the proletariat disapprove of your beloved Marx? Socialist revolutions can take place in small enough confines so that most proletarians involved will be Marxist. And I'm not anti-communist, I'm for achieving communism the way Marx himslef said it should be done: with socialism first. Only socialism can function well in a capitalsit world, and only socialism can take place on small enough of a scale so as not to include billions of people. Over time, socialism can build, and lead to world socialism, and then to communism. What I am for, actually, if the immediate empowering of the proletariat as a class, while you are for a lengthy utopian like revolution wiht no leaders and no commitment to communism, which of course will not aid any workers in the foreseeable future (nor will it help workers help themselves, as you'd likely prefer I say).

[cph_shawarma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:57 AM
This is denying the principle of leadership. Name for me one successful movement that 1. was simply spontaneous, as yours must be and 2. had no leader, but simply a mass of like minded, totally committed individuals. There is none. What you are trying to do is to unify the proletariat worldwide. Not just the proletariat of a nation, but a world. And that, my friend, is extremely utopian thinking. And I suppose I can stop calling you 'comrade' as you hav repeatedly said you are anti-socialist. A communist who is anti-socialist! And your telling me to read some Marx, oh scholar you? Marx made it clear that socialism is a transitional stage towards communism. And here you are declaring yourself boldly an anti-socialist!
No, it is not denying the "principle" of leadership... It is a different view on what leadership is and who are the leaders of the worldwide material movement for communism. The leaders are not the self-proclaimed socialists or communists of the world, in spite what they may say. The leaders are the proles who are in the front of the communist class movement. They may call themselves communists, but in most cases it doesn't matter. Leaders are leaders in practice.

"My" movement (which isn't mine, but a movement in existence due to the present state of things) is not "simply spontaneous". "My" movement has leaders, and not a mass of like minded individuals (the individual is a concrete abstraction of reality). There are no movements without leaders, but we have a different view of leaders, as stated above.

I'm not trying to unify the global proletariat, I'm working for the strengthening of the global proletariat (to the extent I can) which leads to its unification.

Socialism is ideology, as Marx repeatedly upheld, and will therefore always be anti-communist. Communism and leftist capitalism (socialism) are opposed, since the first is anti-ideological, anti-political and anti-capitalist, as for the second is ideological, political and capitalist.

I would like you to show me where Marx used the word socialism as a specific state, in Critique of Gotha he explicitly uses the dicatorship of the proletariat to describe the short period between capitalism and the lower stage of communism.

I have been associated with the left for 4 years and during this time I have studied Marx and other theorists of interest. I have also debated with leninists for quite a while, I have drawn conclusions from my own practice etc. This hasn't always been the funniest thing and I'd appreciate it if you at least showed some respect to that fact instead of throwing anti-intellectualism in my face.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by cph_shawarma+Jun 10 2005, 08:36 AM--> (cph_shawarma @ Jun 10 2005, 08:36 AM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 07:57 AM
This is denying the principle of leadership. Name for me one successful movement that 1. was simply spontaneous, as yours must be and 2. had no leader, but simply a mass of like minded, totally committed individuals. There is none. What you are trying to do is to unify the proletariat worldwide. Not just the proletariat of a nation, but a world. And that, my friend, is extremely utopian thinking. And I suppose I can stop calling you 'comrade' as you hav repeatedly said you are anti-socialist. A communist who is anti-socialist! And your telling me to read some Marx, oh scholar you? Marx made it clear that socialism is a transitional stage towards communism. And here you are declaring yourself boldly an anti-socialist!
No, it is not denying the "principle" of leadership... It is a different view on what leadership is and who are the leaders of the worldwide material movement for communism. The leaders are not the self-proclaimed socialists or communists of the world, in spite what they may say. The leaders are the proles who are in the front of the communist class movement. They may call themselves communists, but in most cases it doesn't matter. Leaders are leaders in practice.

"My" movement (which isn't mine, but a movement in existence due to the present state of things) is not "simply spontaneous". "My" movement has leaders, and not a mass of like minded individuals (the individual is a concrete abstraction of reality). There are no movements without leaders, but we have a different view of leaders, as stated above.

I'm not trying to unify the global proletariat, I'm working for the strengthening of the global proletariat (to the extent I can) which leads to its unification.

Socialism is ideology, as Marx repeatedly upheld, and will therefore always be anti-communist. Communism and leftist capitalism (socialism) are opposed, since the first is anti-ideological, anti-political and anti-capitalist, as for the second is ideological, political and capitalist.

I would like you to show me where Marx used the word socialism as a specific state, in Critique of Gotha he explicitly uses the dicatorship of the proletariat to describe the short period between capitalism and the lower stage of communism.

I have been associated with the left for 4 years and during this time I have studied Marx and other theorists of interest. I have also debated with leninists for quite a while, I have drawn conclusions from my own practice etc. This hasn't always been the funniest thing and I'd appreciate it if you at least showed some respect to that fact instead of throwing anti-intellectualism in my face. [/b]
Well, I do not see any difference between your type of leaders and the type I favor. I favor leaders who are committed to establishing socialism and are not just power hungry. Such leaders are hard to come by, but they do exist. And with democracy, the power o these leaders can be sufficiently checked.

And how large is your movement? It cannot be very large since I presume that your 'leaders', like you, are extremely anti-socialist.

But you do think that the proletariat can in fact be compeltely unified? That's impossible. You'll never get an entire class to be favorable of the excat same thing, but you can, however, get the majorty. But you cannot even get the majority without socialism. Without world socialism, you will end up with a divided mass which will likely eventually break up.

Ah, so communism arises directly out of capitalism? Do you realize that this is impossible? With the global nature of capitalism now, you'd have to get an increidble amount of proletarians signed on to the communist cause, even though most of them will not know much about capitalism, and most will not know anything about communism. And you look at the glaring realities of such a proposition, to unify the proletariat for communism, and find nothing but reality in it?

In Economic and Philosophic manuscripts of 1844 he says, for example, where there will be private property under socialism. But it is not wise to take MArx's words as exact fact, especially since much of his wirting was done nearly 150 years ago. We must now accept that socialism is a neccesary stage in the journey towards communism.

I am throwing some shit you don't like in your face? Perhaps the time has come for you to denounce your anti-socialist statement, or else I fear I shall never stop this arguing with you. We Socialists and you anarcho-communists now must become allies, not enemies, in th quest for world communism. And yet you have taken a step backwards, you have publicly declared yourself an anti-socialist. It troubles me, as an intellectual, to see that you truly believe your ideas to be possble in reality. You oppose all nationalistic movements neccesarily, you oppose all socialists. You are no comrade of the socialist cause. Your near religious commitment to the words of Marx is rather disturbing, and it seems to have separated you from your reality. The world movement you propose is simply impossible, and you incorporate violence into it without having the slightest idea of how this effects your cause. For such a movement to even have a chance at success, I suggest you clone yourself a few billion times, for otherwise, you will not be able to gain nearly enough people committed to your communist concept.

[cph_shawarma]

And so you somehow propose that the proletariat, worldwide mind you, will break their chains and spontaneously revolt?
No, spontanism is not my melody, but not the voluntarism you propose either. Please read my posts before you attempt to criticise them or we can never have a prosperous discussion.


The revolt will not be worldwide, it simply can't be.
Why not? The only successful revolution can be a worldwide (or at least hit all the central capitalist countries within months or a year). Up until now the revolutions have been isolated and they have all failed, since the capitalist system is to powerful to strike at a partial territory. I am not denying it is a tough task which the proletariat is bearing, but who ever said changing the world was easy?


This is not to mention the problem of 'uniting' the proletariat as a class. Yuo do understand that currently, a large part of the proletariat aren't even leftists, let alone utopian communsts, and would surely oppose your proposed world revoltuion.
I don't give a f**k if the proles will all start calling themselves communists or not. Again you have the ideological approach to this problem. As I have stated before, and which I have confirmed with Marx-quotes (just show you how anti-Marxian your approach is), the movement is a material movement, which all proles more or less are involved in due to the present state of things. Of course the role of revolutionaries is to advance, radicalise and collectivise these struggles already in existence, not propose ideological answers to ideological questions, but attacking ideology, politics and capitalism in practice.


Yuo have just decided that your revoltuion will be violent.
No, history has shown that revolutions are violent and authoritarian processes. That's nothing I can change. For the rest of this paragraph I leave with my earlier posts.


But even so, surely you could provide me with some type of verification that this grand communist revolution is in fact taking place, or atleast you know of several committed communists, right?
Have you ever worked? If so, you must have several insights to what goes on in factories, hospitals and nursing homes. Do the workers spontaneously oppose work? Yes. Do the workers, at many places, take use values spontaneously? Yes. Do the workers act collectively in many questions spontaneously? Yes. The communist movement is already in existence (see Marx above).


So what process to you propose using to defeat the entire capitalsit world? So what you propose is that some communists will begin openly opposing capitalists, and that these few will gain fellow communists, that it will spread like wildfire? Again, what processes exactly are you referring to? And no, I suppose I am deeply anti-Maxian to such an orthodox thinker as you, as I think in terms of practicality, and let me be the first to tell you, what you propose is not practical at all, especially since you oppose leadership as well as any national (not global) socialist movements.
No, I'm absolutely certain that a communist revolution will not be the action of communists (proletarian theorists), but the action of the proletariat. This process is already in existence as I have concretised for you above. I am definitely not orthodox, why do you say that? It is I who think in terms of practice, your thinking is ideological and highly utopian. As I stated in my previous post I do not oppose leadership, we just have different views of which people are the leaders. I am opposed to left capitalist movements everywhere, but of course the form of the proletarian communist movement are in many cases national (even if this too is dissolving), but its content is international.


There is no one communist movement, I'm sorry to tell you.
Yes, there is only one communist movement. It is not an ideological movement, but a movement of revolutionary practice.


And since you are anti-socialist, you will neccesarily oppose any movement within the confines of the state, and will only be accepting of a movement that is without a state, but rather is a worldwide class movement.
Yup, I oppose any movement within the confines of the state, since the state is a bourgeois institution. Have you even read any Marx?


Socialism means that the forces of production are nationalized. This means that since the factory becomes owned by the state, the individual proletarian will become an integral part of socialist society. The proletriat, by extension, are socialism. Without the proletariat, there is no socialism.
Yes, this is socialism, and this is exactly why I oppose it. The only thing you want to change is the form of capitalism, which is why socialism is merely leftist capitalism. Without the proletariat, there is no capitalism. The communist tendency of the proletariat aims at destroying the proletariat (as variable capital and class) and all classes with it. This is why I'm opposed to socialist movements, since they only want to ride on the backs of the proletariat. They never want to rid the world of the proletariat (as class), since their very existence depends on the existence of a proletariat.


How can a mostly divided mass achieve anything worthwhile?
They can not, but this wasn't the question. The working class is not weak because it is divided, it is divided because it is weak.


How do you expect to unify the world when many in the proletariat disapprove of your beloved Marx?
Again, see above. It is not an ideological unification. No revolutions have ever been preceded by ideological hegemony. Paris '68 is a perfect example of a communist insurrection, and it was hardly driven by ideological hegemony, rather it was driven by communist practice.


nor will it help workers help themselves, as you'd likely prefer I say
No, I wouldn't prefer you to say this... It is still a matter of "helping", I don't need any help, me and my class can take care of our own liberation...

To begin grasping Marx's thought you might want to read Cyril Smith's Marx at the Millenium, which is full of Marx-quotes and years of study to come back to Marx after the devastating effect of marxist ideology of the 20th century:
http://www.marx.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/index.htm

[cph_shawarma]

Well, I do not see any difference between your type of leaders and the type I favor. I favor leaders who are committed to establishing socialism and are not just power hungry. Such leaders are hard to come by, but they do exist. And with democracy, the power o these leaders can be sufficiently checked.
Yes, there is a big difference in your view of leaders and my perception of the "vanguard" of the proletariat. Your conception of leadership is bourgeois, since you want "elected" leaders who represent the class. The communist leadership is not elected, it is simply a material leadership of the most advanced segments of the class and they are not representing the class, but are merely in the front of the class struggle, as for instance the fighting workers' collective at Cerealia Bakeries in Stockholm, Sweden.


And how large is your movement? It cannot be very large since I presume that your 'leaders', like you, are extremely anti-socialist.
Ffs, I have already explained how "my" movement is constituted, it is not an organisation, it is not a party, it is not a union. It is the spontaneous and conscious communist activity of the proletariat (negation of capital).


But you do think that the proletariat can in fact be compeltely unified? That's impossible. You'll never get an entire class to be favorable of the excat same thing, but you can, however, get the majorty. But you cannot even get the majority without socialism. Without world socialism, you will end up with a divided mass which will likely eventually break up.
Workers can definitely become unified in practice (I don't know how many times I have to explain to you that it is a practical movement and not an ideological. Get it?) as has been proven by the communist insurrections of the past and struggling workers' collectives of the present.


Ah, so communism arises directly out of capitalism? Do you realize that this is impossible? With the global nature of capitalism now, you'd have to get an increidble amount of proletarians signed on to the communist cause, even though most of them will not know much about capitalism, and most will not know anything about communism. And you look at the glaring realities of such a proposition, to unify the proletariat for communism, and find nothing but reality in it?
Yes, communism is a tendency of the proletariat (which is a capitalistic class). Why is it impossible? There is no specifically socialist "mode of production", nor a socialist "social order". The "mode of production" and "social order" which may replace capitalism is communism. No, I don't need an incredible amount of proles signed on to the communist cause, they are in practice already to some extent involved in communist activity. The only thing needed is evolving and radicalising this activity. The proletariat will be unified due to a collective process, namely the process of class struggle. Anyone who has been involved in workplace resistance in any form knows this...


We must now accept that socialism is a neccesary stage in the journey towards communism.
Why should I accept something that is incorrect?


We Socialists and you anarcho-communists now must become allies, not enemies, in th quest for world communism.
I'm no anarcho-communist. I'm an authoritarian communist! And I don't need to build alliances with ideological leftists, they are often the last people I want to build alliances with, since they are more anti-communist than the prole in general. They are more committed to "honest work", statism and other perverted misconceptions than any random prole.


Your near religious commitment to the words of Marx is rather disturbing, and it seems to have separated you from your reality.
I am not religiously committed to the words of Marx, but to denounce the entire tradition of Marxian thought just because you need to look good in front of the bourgeois media and the bourgeois order seems quite opportunistic. Marx had quite a few problematic notions, one for instance that the communist insurrection would rise from poverty and misery. We now know this to be untrue, communist insurrections rise from wealth and prosperity.


The world movement you propose is simply impossible, and you incorporate violence into it without having the slightest idea of how this effects your cause.
How does this effect "my cause" (which is an entirely incorrect description of what I'm doing)? Stating the obvious is going to effect "my cause"? So when the proletariat come up against the bourgeois state and all its war machinery, it should just do it Gandhi style (which didn't work then and definitely won't work now)? This conception rises either from ignorance or apology of the bourgeois order. May I suggest Amadeo Bordiga's Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle (available at www.sinistra.net).

Please try to understand the concept of the material movement before attacking it with ideology.

[anomaly]

I will act as a comrade, rather than an enemy, which is how you are acting, shawarma. I ask you simply, how do you believe that a communist movement is gaining momentum when there is no defined communist movement? Where are your comrades? Do you even have comrades? Do you realize that you don't have the support of scarcely any of the proletariat? I question how effective your revolution will be if you don't even have the support of the proletariat! Your movement requires too many of the proletariat to fight in this world revolution. My model allows for only the proletariat in a nation to be needed. And no, I'm not against violent revolution, but rather I question its effectiveness on a world scale. Now, let's speak in modern terms, you must realize how large a force is needed, and how skilled these warriors must be. You will have to combat all the armies of the world, almost all at once. You deny yourself any 'bourgeois' soicalists such as myself. Now, I'll leave you some things to respond to, and hopefully you'll respond with practical strategy rather than Marxist ideology.

-You realize that a great majority of workers are now bound by and quite loyal to capital...how will you break them away with it, especially using an ideology few of them understand?

-If you don't want to use ideology, and it seems you don't, then what are you fighting for? You're fighting for communism, right, but you don't think your fighters will need to have any knowledge of communism?

-How do you expect to gain numbers by declaring youself anti-socialist? Do you realize that many workers of the world are socialists? Do you realize that many workers of the world will look at your proposal and see an impossible task?

-You haven't actually told me anything about how your revolution will begin...would you mind explaining your process to me, perhaps using your own thoughts?

-How can you have so much faith that so many of the proletariat will rally behind your cause?

If your proposed revolution ever comes, but I doubt it will, I'd surely join it. But you explain things so generally, you add to its utopian flavor. And why do you oppose socialism? Why do you oppose a system that will lead to the betterment of mankind, atleast those iwthin the socialist nation? Most importantly, since your ideas are probably not going to take material form, atleast this revolution won't, in the near future, would you ally yourself with a socialist nation? Or, would you fight against this nation?

[cph_shawarma]

I'll try to answer your questions, even if I have already answered them quite a few times by now... You should read my posts and not throw the same ideology on me...


how do you believe that a communist movement is gaining momentum when there is no defined communist movement?
The communist movement is not an ideological movement, but a material movement (the movement which abolishes the present state of things). Whether or not the people involved in abolishing the foundation of this society is aware of it, has no importance. Net pirates are involved in this movement, but I doubt even 2% of all of the net pirates are aware communists. Still they are fighting (in practice) the basic founding stone of capitalist society: the commodity.


Do you even have comrades? Do you realize that you don't have the support of scarcely any of the proletariat?
Here in Sweden there are approx. 100-200 people involved in the theoretical activity (i.e. they are aware communists). About 99.9999% of the proletariat is involved in (partial) capital negation of some sort, this is why the proletariat is the revolutionary class of capitalist society. What is needed by revolutionaries is to escalate, radicalise and develop these struggles already in existence.


Now, I'll leave you some things to respond to, and hopefully you'll respond with practical strategy rather than Marxist ideology.
I have never used "marxist" ideology, I'm describing the movement already in existence to you: an ideological left bourgeois.


-You realize that a great majority of workers are now bound by and quite loyal to capital...how will you break them away with it, especially using an ideology few of them understand?
Yes, they are bound to capital, since capital is bound to them. All workers reproduce capital. I have already explained to you that the workers spontaneously are (partially) acting outside capital and state, by for instance stealing at work, pirating mp3s etc. This potential of the proletariat is its communist tendency, which is the "hope of humanity".


-If you don't want to use ideology, and it seems you don't, then what are you fighting for? You're fighting for communism, right, but you don't think your fighters will need to have any knowledge of communism?
I'm fighting for communism, which is not an ideology ("an ideal to which reality will have to adjust") but a movement ("the movement which abolishes the present state of things"). Therefore the abolition of the commodity (along with the general commodity: money), wage-labour and capital in its totality is what I'm striving for. "My" fighters (which you insist on calling them, even though they are their own fighters and I'm merely a theoretically aware part of the struggle) are already fighting for communism in some sense, even though not in a large enough scale (as would be obvious to anyone).


-How do you expect to gain numbers by declaring youself anti-socialist? Do you realize that many workers of the world are socialists? Do you realize that many workers of the world will look at your proposal and see an impossible task?
In answering the last question I explained this to you... I don't give a f**k if they think they're up to an impossible task, they are in practice already fighting for it. Again, you might be interested in reading some basic Marx, maybe some operaists, Gilles Dauvé and Amadeo Bordiga...


-You haven't actually told me anything about how your revolution will begin...would you mind explaining your process to me, perhaps using your own thoughts?
How am I supposed to know how the revolution will escalate? What do you think I am? A fortuneteller?


-How can you have so much faith that so many of the proletariat will rally behind your cause?
I have no faith in this. However I have faith in that the proletariat will be unified in practice, which all historical, communist insurrections have proven.......


And why do you oppose socialism? Why do you oppose a system that will lead to the betterment of mankind, atleast those iwthin the socialist nation? Most importantly, since your ideas are probably not going to take material form, atleast this revolution won't, in the near future, would you ally yourself with a socialist nation? Or, would you fight against this nation?
I oppose socialism, because of its character: it is leftist capitalism. I oppose the system, because it will only lead to a perspective on capital's long-term goals, instead of as today where the perspective is on the interests of individual capitals. My "ideas" are already in material form (net pirating, anti-work, proletarian shopping etc.). I would not ally myself with a bourgeois state, whether it called itself "socialist" or not is of no importance. I would fight it as hard as I fight other forms of capitalism.

[UltraLeftGerry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:32 AM


I was quite surprised to see Avakian admit openly that his "communism" would never permit direct working-class self-government.

RS, for the sake of reference and being curious what else he has to say regarding this could you point to a definitive speech or article where Avakian announces his permanent bureaucratic fetishism?

[JC1]

The communist movement is not an ideological movement, but a material movement (the movement which abolishes the present state of things). Whether or not the people involved in abolishing the foundation of this society is aware of it, has no importance. Net pirates are involved in this movement, but I doubt even 2% of all of the net pirates are aware communists. Still they are fighting (in practice) the basic founding stone of capitalist society: the commodity.

This is false. Besides net piracy , I cant think any other force activly fighting capital , besides class counsince communists. And " Fighting " the commodity is useless. It does create a crisis for capital , but capital aleways solves this crisis at the point of the realization of value ( AKA Exchange ).

Look at all Exchange based reveloutions, they all ended in less then a month . The 2 biggest examples are the LA Riots of 92' and the french reveloution of 68'. Both , done in a month.



Here in Sweden there are approx. 100-200 people involved in the theoretical activity (i.e. they are aware communists). About 99.9999% of the proletariat is involved in (partial) capital negation of some sort, this is why the proletariat is the revolutionary class of capitalist society. What is needed by revolutionaries is to escalate, radicalise and develop these struggles already in existence.

I agree with this statement. But We can do this best if we are not sectratarian ( IE putting our orginizatinol Intrests ahead of our class ).


I have never used "marxist" ideology, I'm describing the movement already in existence to you: an ideological left bourgeois.

How is the movement bourgoise ?


I have no faith in this. However I have faith in that the proletariat will be unified in practice, which all historical, communist insurrections have proven.......


Actualy, the only working class reveloutions I can think of that were led by a mostly unified class were the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and The Paris commune.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:36 AM
Communism and leftist capitalism (socialism) are opposed, since the first is anti-ideological, anti-political and anti-capitalist, as for the second is ideological, political and capitalist.


Communism is anti-political? It was Bakunin who preached this, made abstention from politics a sectarian dogma. Marx opposed this, of course.

That raises the question, what is meant by politics...IMO politics is classes fighting for power.

I agree with you on some points, including what a communist is - stuff from Marx and Engels I also try to remind people of - and what the vanguard of the class is, and the class rather than ideological criterion, ...as a Leninist I want to see that vanguard, the more militant and conscious fighting workers, organized into a party, but anyway....you seem to be opposing all politics but "pure and simple trade unionism" or workplace struggle, unless I misunderstand you. That seems to me overly narrow. The class struggle arises all kinds of places in all kinds of forms. And as the Manifesto says, communists seek to advance the struggle along the "lines of march of the working class" towards taking power ("raising the proletariat to the position of the ruling class") and using that power to achieve its complete emancipation.

And the working class has to lead other layers of working people, and all the oppressed and exploited, which requires joining other struggles against a range of types of oppression and exploitation...

Incidentally, a number of people are misdefining sectarianism IMO...it isn't putting organizational interests first. That's factionalism. Sectarianism is putting some special dogma first...see Marx's letter to Schweitzer (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_10_13.htm) on sects' "particular shibboleths", it's worth considering carefully IMO.


I would like you to show me where Marx used the word socialism as a specific state, in Critique of Gotha he explicitly uses the dicatorship of the proletariat to describe the short period between capitalism and the lower stage of communism.

Right. "Socialism" was used by some later Marxists, including Lenin, to refer to the "lower phase of communism" as Marx called it. Purely a difference of terminology, to refer to the same concepts. Later it was redefined by Stalin and others in ways I don't care for, as I said earlier.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:26 AM
ot to mention the problem of 'uniting' the proletariat as a class. Yuo do understand that currently, a large part of the proletariat aren't even leftists, let alone utopian communsts, and would surely oppose your proposed world revoltuion.
You really can't get it through your head that ideological labels are not the main thing, can you?

As Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...you can't understand anything if you only look at the label rather than the thing itself.

People wearing a "leftist" label are not necessarily worth a dime more than people who aren't. Sometimes less. It's case by case.

And "utopian" is definitely not accurate for Shawarma, I'm wondering if you understand the meaning of the word. For Marxists, it refers to drawing up a blueprint of a future society and thinking one can bring it about by abstract preaching of the desirability of that future society. I think a lot of middle-class leftism, including as reflected on this board, fits that description to a T.

Marxist communism, in contrast, grows out of the living, present-day class struggle. Which is precisely what Shawarma keeps emphasizing as the basis of communism, so that's the opposite of utopianism.

If Shawarma is making a mistake with a name, it's workerism, (http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/pubs/umrabulo/umrabulo19/workerism.html) not utopianism.

'Course that term has often been thrown around in a wholly unjustified fashion.

[cph_shawarma]

This is false. Besides net piracy , I cant think any other force activly fighting capital , besides class counsince communists. And " Fighting " the commodity is useless. It does create a crisis for capital , but capital aleways solves this crisis at the point of the realization of value ( AKA Exchange ).
Well, I can think of them: those of us who steal stuff at our workplace, who object to wage labour by taking every possible moment to do something else etc. All this is spontaneous attacks on capital. No, fighting the commodity is a basic part of a communist insurrection (especially the attack on the commodity workforce). Of course an insurrection can not lead to success if it only focuses on the circulation of capital, but it must also attack capitalist commodity production and the technology associated with it (since no technology is without class content). But attacking the commodity in a full frontal (or as a swarm, if you're into Negri & Hardt's ideology).


I agree with this statement. But We can do this best if we are not sectratarian ( IE putting our orginizatinol Intrests ahead of our class ).
Then, I must probably be the biggest anti-sectarian, since I'm not part of any organization. My standpoint has been to organise the class conflict, instead of the class (as does unions, parties and other organisations).


How is the movement bourgoise ?
I wrote the stuff in haste and this is bound to be misinterpreted. ;) It is anomaly who is the ideological left bourgeois.


Actualy, the only working class reveloutions I can think of that were led by a mostly unified class were the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and The Paris commune.
Well, I can think of more communist insurrections which upholds my thesis: DDR 1953, Hungary 1956, Paris (mostly, but also other parts of the world) 1968, S:t Petersburg 1917, Kronstadt 1920, Germany 1919, Barcelona 1936 etc.

[cph_shawarma]

Communism is anti-political? It was Bakunin who preached this, made abstention from politics a sectarian dogma. Marx opposed this, of course.
Well, Bakunin was a communist too... But that is of no matter, since I haven't taken this from Bakunin, but from Marx via Gilles Dauvé.

"The communist movement is not a-political, but anti-political. It fights against the State and against all groups standing as mediations between the proletariat and communism, and which believe and make people believe in political solutions." Gilles Dauvé, Eclipse & Re-emergence of the Communist Movement, 1972-73

According to a note Marx developed a critique of politics, mainly in The King of Prussia and Social Reform, 1844. Instead he strived for social upheaval.


you seem to be opposing all politics but "pure and simple trade unionism" or workplace struggle, unless I misunderstand you. That seems to me overly narrow.
I'm definitely not a "trade unionist" and I do not only focus on workplace struggle. But in the course of my debating with anomaly I had to explain to him, where this struggle begins: in the workplace (and not in parties of all twisted sorts). Class struggle arises for example in the sphere of circulation (e.g. net pirates).


And as the Manifesto says, communists seek to advance the struggle along the "lines of march of the working class" towards taking power ("raising the proletariat to the position of the ruling class") and using that power to achieve its complete emancipation.
I am quite skeptical to using these parts of the Manifesto, especially since Marx altered his conception of the revolution, first in The 18th brumaire... and later following the experiences of the Paris commune.

[anomaly]

Unrelated, but shawarma, I must apologize for my foolishness. I spent much of this weekend trying to weigh the pros and cons of 'skipping' socialism in the move to communism, and have found such a move to be, after much thought, highly beneficial. You are right, communism is what we're after, so why would I want socialism? I boggle my own mind now, but I must say, I've begun to see your ideas (which are mostly Marx's...) in a different light. I must say you've proven youself quite intelligent, as you've proved able to change my own opinions. I don't think I agree with you on everything, however. But I would just like to tell you that I'm with you, and I see now that socialism was simply a 'neccesary evil' in my ideas, and such evil is never neccesary. I have some ideas on how to carry out this revolution, of course, that may be wildly different from yours. I am, however, most interested in hearing if you have any more specific ideas on how communism may look, besides that it is statelss, moneyless, and classless.

Also, stop calling me 'bourgeois' please.