A person I've talked to has the following question

[Karl Marx's Camel]

A person I've talked to has the following questions. He wanted answers from orthodox (real marxists), not from semi-socialists. I am going to link to this thread, so he can see the answers himself.



(1) Why haven't socialist revolutions broken out in the way in which Marx described? This means in industrialized nations such as Britain or the States. It's been over 150 years since Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and Capital, and he seemed to think that revolution was imminent.

(2) On grounds do you believe that human society as a whole can be drastically re-organized in such a way that, so to speak, everything will go off without a hitch? Sociology isn't exactly a natural science. What I mean is, how do you justify a belief in a nationalised economy, controlled by fallible human beings, will ever reach a state in which all things are accounted for? This seems to be the greatest virtue laizer-faire capitalism and Burkean conservativism (which I will argue in favour of) have over Marxist socialism. I would have liked to have worded this question better, but I'm at a loss for words. You should be able to get the idea, though.

[Andy Bowden]

I suppose the introduction of Keynesianism and the concessions Western Capitalism made to it's working class helped to stop revolution - or at least hinder - in their own countries.

It should be noted however that if it wasn't for the Russian Revolution, and the expansion of the Soviets across Eastern Europe, these concessions probably would not have been granted - they were the response to what they saw as a threat from the Soviets, to incite revolution in the West.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:09 PM
(1) Why haven't socialist revolutions broken out in the way in which Marx described? This means in industrialized nations such as Britain or the States. It's been over 150 years since Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and Capital, and he seemed to think that revolution was imminent.

(2) On grounds do you believe that human society as a whole can be drastically re-organized in such a way that, so to speak, everything will go off without a hitch? Sociology isn't exactly a natural science. What I mean is, how do you justify a belief in a nationalised economy, controlled by fallible human beings, will ever reach a state in which all things are accounted for? This seems to be the greatest virtue laizer-faire capitalism and Burkean conservativism (which I will argue in favour of) have over Marxist socialism. I would have liked to have worded this question better, but I'm at a loss for words. You should be able to get the idea, though.
1: Marx never made any predictions of that kind. I would not say that he believed revolution to be immanent. Also I believe that Marx was right, I am very convinced that a revolution is far more likely in a rich & developed capitalism than in the third world countries for example. When people are poor and have no rights, their demands are pointed towars these incongruities: "higher wages!", "civil rights!", better capitalism, etc.
But when capitalism has developed far enough, communist perspectives becomes more common.

"It's only when a social movement can question the wealth proposed or promised by capital, and not just the poverty imposed by capital, that this movement is able to manifest communist potentials." Gilles Dauvé & Karl Nesic, Whither the World




2: Revolution - the remodelation of the social totality - is not a cup of tea. It is a hard process, but I believe that we can pull this off. And we do not demand a nationalised economy, we demand communism. That is a different thing, communism is not about the state administrating capital, it is about negating capital as a whole. To destroy the capital relations, the exchange value, the commodity production as a whole, etc. I believe that humanity can become their own masters and create their own future, and not longer be slave under dead labour and economic laws. Never the less, it is important to note that communism is no heaven on earth, it is not the negation of all problems and it is not perfect. It is a step forward and when that step is taken, that would be a sign that indicates that the step was ready to be taken.

[Clarksist]

1.) Marx never stated it was imminent. What happened was the Paris Commune failure, and then the Russian Revolution. Once the USSR was formed, many alike revolutions followed, but it was not under the correct guidance.

In this way it gave everyone a "bad first impression" and Communism was set back.

2.) Social "re-organization" is very easy through revolution. Post-revolution you will have a mass of people who were willing to fight to the death for this new system, and they will make damn sure it will work. They will raise their children to live in this new system, and as post-revolution fades to just life, most people will hold this ideology.

[Hiero]

I am very convinced that a revolution is far more likely in a rich & developed capitalism than in the third world countries for example. When people are poor and have no rights, their demands are pointed towars these incongruities: "higher wages!", "civil rights!", better capitalism, etc.
But when capitalism has developed far enough, communist perspectives becomes more common.

I disagree. It is the Proletariat in the first world who ask for higher wages, more luxuries, and more petty things. They are able to get these things from imperialism, so they have a higher standard of living compared to those in the 3rd world, ranged from middle class status to working class status. Even the lowest working class in first world nations have it better off then the highest working class in the 3rd world. Then there are the lumpen proletariat who can never grasp the idea of revolution, well not for long as they dependant on welfare.

Imperialism has eradicated what little class conscious there was in the 1st world. Now working rights are often won through Union aristocracy and the capitalist class, and in Australia for example when a conclusion is not met, a third party makes a middle way agreement. So workers in most cases are not even fighting for their rights, a bureaucratic system does it for them.

So they have no need for change of economic system, they can keep the standard level of living as long as labour is exploited from 3rd world countries to keep that standard of living.

The third world is now in the place where revolution is possible. There goals are more extreme then higher wages and worker rights. They often have no chance to do this kind campaigning as it can be illegal. They begin to have a more communist perspective, as they recognise the main culprit as US imperialism.

We have proof that this is the case, the Communist revolutions today are being fought in the 3rd world, not the 1st world.

[kingbee]

i tend to believe the revolution will happen in the 3rd world too.

is this, in reductionist terms, maoist?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:00 PM
i tend to believe the revolution will happen in the 3rd world too.

is this, in reductionist terms, maoist?
Yes.

[STI]

Why haven't socialist revolutions broken out in the way in which Marx described? This means in industrialized nations such as Britain or the States. It's been over 150 years since Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and Capital, and he seemed to think that revolution was imminent.

I don't think Marx ever said the revolutions were "imminent" (ie: will happen very soon), but rather that they were "inevitable". I don't think he ever really gave a timeline for when it has to happen by.

It's really, really hard to determine exactly why revolutions havn't happened yet, since there are so many things that come into play at any given moment. I expect it has a good deal to do with using strategies that, well, don't work. People trusted reformism, and that didn't work. People trusted unions like the AFL-CIO, and that didn't work either. Each new generation often ends up reinventing the wheel, which hinders progress. Stuff like that.

Another factor may be intense repression at certain times. After the Paris Commune, the European ruling classes went on a campaign to either kill or deport all the anarchists/communists they could find. This basically caused the anarchist movement to take on a strategy of what they called "propaganda by deed", which basically amounted to acts of terrorism intended to "shake things up" (ie: assasinations). That didn't work, either, and served to make anarchism unappealing for some time.

During the rise and rule of the fascist powers in Europe, serious leftists, as well and unions and other working class elements were severely repressed. This also screwed us in terms of progress.

But all this history stuff is only really any good if we take what there is to learn about it and apply it to the present and the future. We need to know what works, what doesn't, who we should be wary of.


On grounds do you believe that human society as a whole can be drastically re-organized in such a way that, so to speak, everything will go off without a hitch?

It won't go off without a hitch. There'll be all kinds of screw-ups, failed attempts, and the like. There'll never be a perfect revolution. The point isn't to have one, though. The point is to make is as good as possible and learn from the mistakes of ourselves and others.


What I mean is, how do you justify a belief in a nationalised economy, controlled by fallible human beings, will ever reach a state in which all things are accounted for?

I don't believe in a nationalized economy.


This seems to be the greatest virtue laizer-faire capitalism and Burkean conservativism (which I will argue in favour of) have over Marxist socialism. I would have liked to have worded this question better, but I'm at a loss for words. You should be able to get the idea, though.

If you're worried about a nationalized economy being run by "fallible human beings", tell me, who do you think runs the show in an LF economy?