Socialism

[KC]

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

This is the outline that Marx gives socialism in the Manifesto.

How would number 9 work?

Also, what would does "state" mean?

I've been thinking about socialism a lot lately, and realized that socialism has been the problem in moving towards a communist society. I haven't studied any socialist movements, aside from Cuba, and would like some people's opinions on socialism. Do you believe it should consist of soviets? If so, what will the central government consist of? Does there need to be a central government in socialism?

I think that, once a socialist revolution wins in a country, the country should immediately be divided into soviets. Each soviet can have power over its territory and all soviets would have an alliance. Central government of the country as a whole isn't needed as the councils can hold power over their territory, and in the case of enemy hostility, the soviets will work together because of the alliance. I'm not sure, but I think this is how the post-Russian Revolution soviets were like at first. But I really don't know.

Because of this decentralization, the revolution must also be decentralized (i.e. no vanguard). Why not take the council theory and apply it to the revolution? Divide revolutionaries into groups (say, of 100 or 150). Each group elects its "leaders," which the leadership can be revoked at any time with a vote. The groups work together to overthrow the bourgeoisie, and since no one party is in power (no vanguard), nobody will be there to take power, workers councils will be created, and socialism will be created!

Comments?

[h&s]

Also, what would does "state" mean?
The apparatus used to govern society.


Does there need to be a central government in socialism?

No.


Do you believe it should consist of soviets?
Yes, without them it would not be a worker's democracy, therefore it would not be socialism.


I think that, once a socialist revolution wins in a country, the country should immediately be divided into soviets.
That is what will happen anyway, as the working class seizes power by creating alternative power structures.


Each group elects its "leaders," which the leadership can be revoked at any time with a vote. The groups work together to overthrow the bourgeoisie, and since no one party is in power (no vanguard), nobody will be there to take power, workers councils will be created, and socialism will be created!

That is the vanguard, in a real socialist sense. A party is just a means of organisation.

[Roses in the Hospital]

How would number 9 work?

I'm not sure if this is how Marx meant it, but I would interpret that as meaning a system of equally populated communes across the country, combing both industry and agriculture to eliminate the inequality between town and country...

[KC]

The apparatus used to govern society.


I know that, but what IS it.


That is the vanguard, in a real socialist sense. A party is just a means of organisation.

I wasn't talking about a party. I was talking about the revolutionary army.

[More Fire for the People]

How would number 9 work?
I'm assuming that economic division would be realigned so that communes would become more self-sustainable by both having agricultural and industrial business.


Also, what would does "state" mean?
The system for class-dictatorship.


I've been thinking about socialism a lot lately, and realized that socialism has been the problem in moving towards a communist society.
This is rather impossible seeing as only socialism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- can lead to communism.


I haven't studied any socialist movements, aside from Cuba, and would like some people's opinions on socialism.
Okay, but remember opinions are opinions and not facts.


Do you believe it should consist of soviets?
Entirely so as workers' councils are the basis of proletarian economic organization and will be a definite part of the political structure of socialism.


If so, what will the central government consist of?
A congress of labor unions, workers' councils, consumers' councils, and students' councils.


Does there need to be a central government in socialism?
Possibly, if it is discovered that "rich" communes take advantage of "poor" communes the state will step in to level out the economic field and provide assistance to developing communes.


I think that, once a socialist revolution wins in a country, the country should immediately be divided into soviets.
Quite so.


Each soviet can have power over its territory and all soviets would have an alliance.
I think you misunderstand what a soviet is, it is a workers' council.
A coalition or federation of workers' councils would manage a commune most likely and these federated communes would be a socialist country.


Central government of the country as a whole isn't needed as the councils can hold power over their territory, and in the case of enemy hostility, the soviets will work together because of the alliance.
This is hopeful, but unlikely.


Because of this decentralization, the revolution must also be decentralized (i.e. no vanguard).
I have always hated the idea of an elitist vanguard of "controlling" the revolution with their "benevolence" and "intellect". The working class must seize power on its on, perhaps with the assistance of devoted guirellas and cultural revolutionaries but not leaders.


Why not take the council theory and apply it to the revolution?
Shared power creates a system of organization without leadership which is very communist.


Divide revolutionaries into groups (say, of 100 or 150). Each group elects its "leaders," which the leadership can be revoked at any time with a vote.
I would like to see smaller groups of 10-15 with no leaders or larger groups with representatives for those who do not wish to participate in debate and tactic.


The groups work together to overthrow the bourgeoisie, and since no one party is in power (no vanguard), nobody will be there to take power, workers councils will be created, and socialism will be created!
Socialism is more than workers' councils though, it is the abolition of the wage-system and its negative social effects. In all practicallity some form of a central state will be needed to do this.

[redstar2000]

The Problem with Socialism (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1116781433&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Rotmutter
A congress of labor unions, workers' councils, consumers' councils, and students' councils.

Consumers' councils?
What's the difference between workers' council and labor union?

:hammer:

[More Fire for the People]

Consumers' councils?
Those councils that handle the distribution of wealth and how it impacts the consumer.


What's the difference between workers' council and labor union?
Workers' councils represent factories (ex. London Commune's Taylor, Lond Commune's Petrol Factory) while labor unions represent types of industry (ex. British Federation of Petrol Workers, British Union of Restaurant Workers).

[Reds]

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels


what did marx mean by emigrants and rebels?

[KC]

The system for class-dictatorship.

Yes, but what IS it. What does it consist of?



This is rather impossible seeing as only socialism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- can lead to communism.


I meant that the problem is how socialism was attempted in the past.



A congress of labor unions, workers' councils, consumers' councils, and students' councils.


Who will represent the state in international issues? Maybe the congress can vote on who will be the representative on a case by case basis?



Possibly, if it is discovered that "rich" communes take advantage of "poor" communes the state will step in to level out the economic field and provide assistance to developing communes.

How would they take advantage of each other?



I think you misunderstand what a soviet is, it is a workers' council.
A coalition or federation of workers' councils would manage a commune most likely and these federated communes would be a socialist country.

That's exactly what I meant; I just used different words.



This is hopeful, but unlikely.


Why hopeful? Why unlikely?



Socialism is more than workers' councils though, it is the abolition of the wage-system and its negative social effects. In all practicallity some form of a central state will be needed to do this.

How would the wage system be abolished? Everybody receiving equal salary?

As for redstar's paper......


The people who remain attached to the idea of socialism as a "epoch of transition" between capitalism and communism...have a problem.

The socialist societies of the 20th century never accomplished that transition...and, in fact, never even tried.

Moreover, they were, on the whole, rather unpleasant places to live. Perhaps not as truly awful as the capitalist media portrayed them...but considerably worse than the advanced capitalist countries.

Leading to a situation where, mistakenly, the people in those socialist countries actually welcomed the return of capitalism. Thinking they were going to get something like Western Europe or North America now, they instead have received the "gangster capitalism" of, say, 1900.

This is because every socialist revolution has been horribly flawed. Russia with the vanguard, Cuba with the guerrillas taking power. I haven't read much about China, but I believe it was along the same lines. What these people have failed to realize is that the revolution must be as decentralized as the socialist state.



Meanwhile, what are the transitional socialists to do? They can try to claim that things were "actually pretty good" under the old socialist regimes...which generally provokes mirth or even scorn.

Or, they can make large promises that they will "do better next time"...raising mountains of skepticism.

Of course we can do better next time. Leadership has been the problem in all socialist revolutions.



What either approach really reveals is their deep lack of confidence in the capabilities of ordinary working people to govern themselves.


How so?



Agreed...but if "greed" is wide-spread even in the revolutionary period, then why shouldn't whoever comes out on top move quickly to consolidate that position and begin enriching themselves?

Again, centralized revolution is the problem.



The "socialism" argument is really based on the proposition that people may overthrow a capitalist ruling class...and yet "not" be "ready" to live in a communist society.

I thought it was based on the proposition that a communist state cannot exist, and that world revolution is near-impossible.


1. The "bureaucratic class" is "not" distinct from the workers.

Well, yes, they are distinct. Why? Because they stand in a different relationship to the means of production than the workers do.

Just like now, the workers under socialism go to work, carry out the orders of their superiors, get a paycheck, and go home.

The bureaucrats are the ones who give those orders and get a much larger paycheck (and many other privileges) in the process.

This material difference affects how the bureaucrats think of themselves...it generates a class consciousness of its own -- one that is distinctly different from that of ordinary workers.

Time passes...and the bureaucrat, whose job is to act like an owner, begins to think that he ought to be an owner.

Guess what happens next.

Why are bureaucrats needed? How about no bureaucrats?



Replacing class with caste, eh?

No, that's not acceptable. Any sort of reasonable worker's "government" would rotate administrative posts on a frequent basis.

Your conception would lead only to a permanent bureaucracy...that would, in time, become a proto-ruling class.

And then a ruling class, period.


Agreed. Why can't members of the councils also be workers?




This I will concede...but, a boss can make your life pretty damn unpleasant without actually firing you.

If you are really a nuisance, he'll get your sorry ass transfered to shoveling pig turds.

They'll call it "socialist re-education".

No managers!


quote:
Engels clearly stated that a democratic government should be used in a communist society.



Um...no, he didn't say that, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Communist society has no government at all in the sense the word is now used -- a professional bureaucracy supported by a professional police force and a professional army.

No doubt there would be a wide variety of social organs for decision-making and they'd certainly be "hyper-democratic"...but, in communist society, there's be nothing that you could point to and say "there's the state" or "there's the government".

I remember posting that; anyways, what does that have to do with socialism? Might wanna take that out, it seems like it shouldn't be in there. There's a bunch about communism; why is it in there? It isn't relevant to the topic.

So why can't a socialist state/revolution happen without a vanguard, without a bureaucracy, without management, etc...?

[anomaly]

"Of course we can do better next time. Leadership has been the problem in all socialist revolutions."

May I ask, Lazar, where this faith comes from in these 'leaders' when no leader has proven to be the right one in the many past revolutions? This also undermines the entire public-'they cannot have revolution until a good leader emerges'. Why must we have leaders in the first place? Or atleast why do we need such ideological leaders? Practical leaders-those who lead the masses in revolution-may be needed, but do we need leaders who tell the masses how to think?

I am also interested in hearing your idea of socialism without a bureacracy. How is economic planning possible without some sort of bureacracy? Will there be no federal level at all? But then how will you escape the problems of confederacy? I have long viewed socialism as dependent upon the existence of a bureacracy, assuming that we must drastically limit the 'levels' of bureacracy. I've considered the use of three levels: local (where most planning would take place), regional (little planning...mostly coordinating the transportation of goods from local planning within the region, along with goods outside the region and those from within headed outside), and federal (which oversees all planning). Also I feel that the workers themselves must organize and plan their own workplaces production in coordination with regional and federal overseers.

On this point, however, I think Redstar makes some sense. Socialism is not neccesary, and has proven in the past to be of little utility. It is something the anti-capitalist movement can certainly do without.

[KC]

May I ask, Lazar, where this faith comes from in these 'leaders' when no leader has proven to be the right one in the many past revolutions? This also undermines the entire public-'they cannot have revolution until a good leader emerges'. Why must we have leaders in the first place? Or atleast why do we need such ideological leaders? Practical leaders-those who lead the masses in revolution-may be needed, but do we need leaders who tell the masses how to think?

Did you read my post? I said NO LEADERS.



I am also interested in hearing your idea of socialism without a bureacracy. How is economic planning possible without some sort of bureacracy?

Why can't the workers do this?


Will there be no federal level at all?

I like the idea of a congress brought up by Rotmutter.


I have long viewed socialism as dependent upon the existence of a bureacracy, assuming that we must drastically limit the 'levels' of bureacracy. I've considered the use of three levels: local (where most planning would take place), regional (little planning...mostly coordinating the transportation of goods from local planning within the region, along with goods outside the region and those from within headed outside), and federal (which oversees all planning).

Why would federal oversee all planning? How about a congress of workers councils?



Also I feel that the workers themselves must organize and plan their own workplaces production in coordination with regional and federal overseers.

Overseers? Also, I don't see the need to have someone's only job to be a governmental one.



On this point, however, I think Redstar makes some sense. Socialism is not neccesary, and has proven in the past to be of little utility. It is something the anti-capitalist movement can certainly do without.

How? Are you advocating worldwide revolution? As in one worldwide revolution? That's pretty much never going to happen.

[anomaly]

The workers could be part of the bureacracy. I don't know how all this local planning can be coordinated usefully without upper levels of a bureacracy, though. Perhaps they could through some form of communication, but this would make planning extremely complex, much more complex than it would be with a bureacracy. A congress of worker's councils would be feasible, but this doesn't eliminate the bureacracy.

I am not advocating a world revolution, I view that as impossible. I've talked beofre about my idea of localized revolution. Basically it consists of mostly peasant groups in the third world creating their own commune. Most cry primitivism when they hear the idea, but I don't think that's an accurate description. It may start as primitivist, but it certainly would advance as more communes arose. This is only an idea for the third world, however. In the first world I rather like the idea of a 'farm-commune' brought up a while ago. Basically, I'm going againt what Marx said here, so you probably won't like it. The defense of such a commune is a problem, certainly, but I think it can be done. Also, in the case of the third world, I don't know how much interest would be taken in the commune by any imperialist powers, but I don't think much would be generated. There's a discussion on this in another thread.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lazar
So why can't a socialist state/revolution happen without a vanguard, without a bureaucracy, without management, etc...?

Because if you do that then you're not talking about socialism any longer...you're talking about communism.

You don't need the word "socialism" any longer.

Why keep it around? What purpose does it serve?

If the working class has the real power...it will move towards communism spontaneously. If it doesn't have the real power, then no amount of red flags and "Marxist" rhetoric can disguise the ugly reality -- a "capitalism without capitalists"...until the party bureaucracy are ready to assume the mantle of a new capitalist class.


I thought it was based on the proposition that a communist state cannot exist, and that world revolution is near-impossible.

The proposition that "the whole world must be socialist" before the transition to communism can begin has never been more than a shabby excuse to postpone communism "until Jesus returns".

In practical terms, it is self-evident nonsense. As each new socialist state emerged, some older socialist state would be restoring capitalism. The "whole world" would never be "entirely socialist".

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

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 08:04 PM
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
what did marx mean by emigrants and rebels?
Those who flee a nation during a revolution for financial reasons -- i.e. capitalists and rich petit-bourgeoisie.

[Lamanov]

I've learned so far that there is no real definition of socialism simply because it was never defined, or it was never agreed arround one definition, thus it's up for subjective interpretation and personal formulation.

For me, there was never any significant difference in the basis of society and its political system, for both communism and 'socialism', except in the element that both represent stages of development in economic and industrial sence, and thus in amount of wealth posesed by society. Nothing more, nothing less. That is my personal interpretation.

I've allways insisted that communist society is built from the start, whatver you may call the 'transitional period', and that from the start workers alone must build structure of their class rule. No "vanguard", no bueraucracy, no managers, no managing experts, etc.

What comrade redstar2000 is refering to as "socialism", I call state capitalism, but the essence of our view is the same.




Originally posted by August Bebel - Women and Socialism+--> (August Bebel - Women and Socialism)The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth[/b]

1 [underline added]


Rosa Luxemburg - The Russian Revolution
This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class — that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

2 [emphasis added]


I have two questions about these definitions:
1 - How is this, in essence, different from communism and formula by which if you don't contribute to community, community does not contribute to you?
2 - "the work of the class, and not of little leading minority in the name of the class". I think this is speaking for itself, right?

[KC]

So what are you suggesting, redstar? Do you think a communist state can exist? Do you think that a worldwide revolution needs to happen?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:17 PM
So what are you suggesting, redstar? Do you think a communist state can exist? Do you think that a worldwide revolution needs to happen?
If I may speak so boldy for redstar, "no".
Objective Conditions (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1122548144&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[KC]

That didn't answer my questions.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:17 PM
So what are you suggesting, redstar? Do you think a communist state can exist? Do you think that a worldwide revolution needs to happen?
No and no.

"Communist state" is an oxymoron.

And "worldwide revolution" is, in a literal sense, an obvious impossibility...it would require every country, every region, etc. to be at the near-identical level of development.

What we will see, I think, is a "revolutionary era" during which the most advanced capitalist countries will fall to proletarian revolution in regional "clumps"...towards the end of that era, the process may spread to the "second world" and include China, Russia, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc.

But even while that's happening, I still expect most or all of the "third world" to be developing along the capitalist path.

There's nothing else they can do.

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

[KC]

And what would you propose that we should do to make this happen?

[redstar2000]

The idea that a small number of "enlightened people" can "make things happen" is idealist.

"Big changes" in human society are the consequence of "big numbers" of people who want to see those changes happen.

And the source of those "big numbers" is primarily the "big changes" that have already happened in the means of production.

When a small number of people appear to have a disproportionate influence on historical change, it's because the ideas that they advocate are "in sync" with material reality...they strike more and more people as "plain common sense".

The specific question -- what can communists do to "advance the revolution" -- has been discussed on many occasions here.

Briefly, we do whatever we can to (1) support and encourage resistance to the despotism of capital regardless of the source of that resistance; and (2) attack the reactionary aspects of that resistance so as to make the resistance deeper and more intransigent.

At such time as capitalism runs into seemingly intractable problems, communists are there to promote and spread the communist alternative -- not to "lead the masses" or any of that crap.

An informed working class is quite capable of leading itself...and our task is to do whatever we can to make sure our class is informed.

Not to "do it for them".

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

[KC]

Yeah yeah yeah vanguard is bad etc.. etc... etc...

So what have you done personally to help educate the masses? (Aside from this site and the redstar2000 papers ;) )

[Commie-Pinko]

I don't think that number 9 is a very good recomendation. To me, conjures up images of the old "cottage industry" system. It's very difficult and pretty inefficient to scatter people accross the country side with their own self-sufficiet towns and communes. I don't think all communes are bad, but that's simply a poor idea.

It's costly to do, not everyone wants to do that, it's not as efficient as industrial centralization, and it's just like cottage industry systems that were abandoned in the 18th century. Urbanates are good.

[Hopes_Guevara]

About number 9, I think it's what can be completely possible. That's the first vast process of division of labour in society of mankind. When we reach communism, this process will be abolished. This is a paragraph in "Anti-Duhring" by Engel:

"Modern industry, which has taught us to convert the movement of molecules, something more or less universally feasible, into the movement of masses for technical purposes, has thereby to a considerable extent freed production from restrictions of locality. Water-power was local; steam-power is free. While water-power is necessarily rural, steam-power is by no means necessarily urban. It is capitalist utilisation which concentrates it mainly in the towns and changes factory villages into factory towns. But in so doing it at the same time undermines the conditions under which it operates. The first requirement of the steam-engine, and a main requirement of almost all branches of production in modern industry, is relatively pure water. But the factory town transforms all water into stinking manure. However much therefore urban concentration is a basic condition of capitalist production, each individual industrial capitalist is constantly striving to get away from the large towns necessarily created by this production, and to transfer his plant to the countryside. This process can be studied in detail in the textile industry districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire; modern capitalist industry is constantly bringing new large towns into being there by constant flight from the towns into the country. The situation is similar in the metal-working districts where, in part, other causes produce the same effects.

Once more, only the abolition of the capitalist character of modern industry can bring us out of this new vicious circle, can resolve this contradiction in modern industry, which is constantly reproducing itself. Only a society which makes it possible for its productive forces to dovetail harmoniously into each other on the basis of one single vast plan can allow industry to be distributed over the whole country in the way best adapted to its own development, and to the maintenance and development of the other elements of production.

Accordingly, abolition of the antithesis between town and country is not merely possible. It has become a direct necessity of industrial production itself, just as it has become a necessity of agricultural production and, besides, of public health. The present poisoning of the air, water and land can be put an end to only by the fusion of town and country; and only such fusion will change the situation of the masses now languishing in the towns, and enable their excrement to be used for the production of plants instead of for the production of disease"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Engels+--> (Engels)Once more, only the abolition of the capitalist character of modern industry can bring us out of this new vicious circle, can resolve this contradiction in modern industry, which is constantly reproducing itself. Only a society which makes it possible for its productive forces to dovetail harmoniously into each other on the basis of one single vast plan can allow industry to be distributed over the whole country in the way best adapted to its own development, and to the maintenance and development of the other elements of production.[/b] -- emphasis added.

It's interesting that Engels very forthrightly predicts "the need" for centralized economic planning on a "vast scale".

But matters are more complicated than Engels anticipated. It's quite true that a factory, in principle, could be built almost anywhere.

But the factors that determine why a factory is constructed here and not there are numerous...and not to be passed over lightly.

When a corporation is deciding where to build a new factory, it must consider (1) the trainability of the potential workforce; (2) the cost of moving raw materials and sub-components to its new location; (3) the quality of the existing infrastructure; (4) the costs of moving the final product to where its customers are located; (5) tax breaks and incentives that might be offered; and, perhaps most importantly, (6) the cost of labor power in the various alternative locations.

In addition, there seems to be a "synergistic" effect when factories that produce similar or competing products are located in one place...with people moving from one corporation to another more or less continuously, this appears to stimulate innovation and fresh approaches to "industry problems". The history of "Silicon Valley" is instructive in this regard.

I am not optimistic about the possibilities of "abolishing the differences" between rural and urban life...though it may be possible to reduce them somewhat.


Originally posted by [email protected]
...and enable their excrement to be used for the production of plants instead of for the production of disease.

This would require an almost complete re-engineering and restructuring of existing sewage systems...something that might be done over a century or so. But I'm not sure people would be willing to undertake such a massive task...even though it might make good ecological sense.


Lazar
So what have you done personally to help educate the masses?

I have a closet full of red t-shirts that say: Communism -- Accept No Substitutes! :lol:

When you have a serious response to my arguments, let me know. :)

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

[Led Zeppelin]

Can redstar explain why Marx was a member of vanguard parties himself if he opposed them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 14 2005, 09:52 AM
Can redstar explain why Marx was a member of vanguard parties himself if he opposed them.
The First International was not a "vanguard party" in any sense of the word.

Whether the "Communist League" was a "proto-vanguard" is controversial...as is the question of its existence as more than a "paper organization" at all.

What is crucial here is that both Marx and Engels had numerous opportunities to advocate a "vanguard party" if they thought that such was the "best choice" or the "only way to go".

In fact, they were contemptuous of small conspiratorial groups "with iron discipline" and equally contemptuous of "personality cults".

The totality of their work emphasizes the historic role of the working class...and does not refer, even indirectly, to the "need for correct leadership".

If anything, it was their view that objective conditions will generate "correct leadership"...as "part of the whole revolutionary process".

Granted that the Leninist experience has demonstrated that the "best line" doesn't "automatically win" -- I think Marx and Engels would have simply replied that if the "best line" doesn't win, that's a sure sign that objective conditions were still immature for communist revolution.

There's simply no way for Leninists to "get around" the fact that Lenin's "vanguard party" is a violent rupture with Marxism.

Certainly as massive and far more significant than my own rejection of "dialectics". Marx would probably chew me out over my apostasy.

But what would he say to you?

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

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:30 PM
There's simply no way for Leninists to "get around" the fact that Lenin's "vanguard party" is a violent rupture with Marxism.

Certainly as massive and far more significant than my own rejection of "dialectics". Marx would probably chew me out over my apostasy.

But what would he say to you?

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

[Led Zeppelin]

There's simply no way for Leninists to "get around" the fact that Lenin's "vanguard party" is a violent rupture with Marxism.


It's more like a addition to Marxism.


Certainly as massive and far more significant than my own rejection of "dialectics".

:lol: Obviously not true, dialectical materialism is one of the basics of Marxism.


Marx would probably chew me out over my apostasy.

But what would he say to you?


I don't really care what he might have said, since it is impossible to know for sure.

[KC]

I have a closet full of red t-shirts that say: Communism -- Accept No Substitutes! laugh.gif

When you have a serious response to my arguments, let me know. smile.gif

Haha that wasn't really a response to your arguments, I just wanted to know.

[Red Powers]

First off, Redstar I'm going to make up one of those T-shirts that's great.

I'm convinced that a long transitional period called socialism is just bushwa. It's just a breeding ground for capitalists and such. I used to think that it would be enough if no individual could hire and exploit another but I've come to realize that no group can be in that position either.

Communism means the abolition of wage slavery and socialism can't apparently do that. The Wobblies sing a song called "Dump the Bosses Off your Back" and that's what workers have to do. No bosses! Whether they are open capitalists, or vanguardists with the best interests of the proletariat at heart. We are the fucking working class, we get up every day and make the whole world run what makes anybody think that we can't run the world? Bosses we don't need no stinkin' Bosses.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
It's more like a addition to Marxism.

Indeed, followers of Lenin assert that Lenin "developed Marxism" -- it's Marxism for "the era of imperialism", etc.

Maoists take it a step further, claiming that Mao "developed Marxism-Leninism" to combat revisionism in socialist countries.

Many people, unfortunately, continue to accept these claims even though the evidence of the entire 20th century has conclusively trashed them...at least in the eyes of anyone willing to look at the evidence objectively.

But even if one is hopelessly bedazzled by the myths and legends of the USSR or People's China or both, everyone should be able to see clearly that, in the eyes of Marxism, those were bourgeois revolutions under the guidance of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois intellectuals.

The only way to maintain "proletarian" illusions about Leninism and all its variants is to say what bourgeois academics say: Marx was good in his day but is now obsolete.

In my view, it is Lenin who is obsolete.

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

[Vanguard1917]

Granted that the Leninist experience has demonstrated that the "best line" doesn't "automatically win" -- I think Marx and Engels would have simply replied that if the "best line" doesn't win, that's a sure sign that objective conditions were still immature for communist revolution.

Then why would they continually insist that every struggle of the working class is also a political struggle? If "objective conditions" alone determine the victory of the proletariat then what is the use of political organisation, action, agitation, etc? Why would Marx and Engels themselves tirelessly intervene politically in the workers movement if they thought that the "objective conditions" of society would inevitably give way to the victory of the proletariat?

The answer is that they believed that the working class was a revolutionary subject of history. As a revolutionary subject, the working class has the potential to shape objective circumstances around its own interests. In capitalist society, "objective conditions" means the spontaneous ups-and-downs of capitalist development, which are in a very significant way under the "control" of the capitalists. For the working class to act as an independent force, it cannot bow down to such spontaneity.

RedStar, i have some reading i'd like to recommend.

History and Class Consciousness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262620200/qid=1124148652/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9317486-5859830?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

and

Tailism and the Dialectic (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-9317486-5859830)

They're both by Georg Lukacs. He was a Hungarian revolutionary during the short-lived communist government of 1919. He later degenerated (in the late 1920s) politically under the pressure of Stalinism (i.e. he became a supporter of Stalin), and even refuted his own earlier ideas.

I found Tailism and the Dialectic by far the most readable and concise. It's basically a long essay defending the ideas that he put forth in History and Class Consciousness. It's definately worth a read (or a re-read). I think he was one of the most creative Marxist thinkers of his generation - he definately helped me to make sense of a lot of things.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Then why would they continually insist that every struggle of the working class is also a political struggle?

I don't remember Marx and Engels actually saying that...but let's suppose they did. What could they have meant by it?

Unless you use a very specific definition of "workers' struggle" -- one that would be limited to major rebellions -- then the statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

When we say a struggle has become political, we mean by that word that the issue of state power has "appeared on the agenda", do we not?

That is, it's no longer a matter of some economic gain, some reform, ending some war, etc....it has become a question of which class is going to rule.

Speaking very abstractly, one could argue that even a trivial or minor working class struggle "contains the seeds" of explosive rebellion...but those seeds almost always are dormant or fall on sterile ground.


As a revolutionary subject, the working class has the potential to shape objective circumstances around its own interests.

That's either too vague or a tautology (perhaps both!).

When objective circumstances permit the working class to act as a subject of history, then it rises to overthrow or attempt to overthrow the old ruling class. When you suggest that at that point it is "shaping objective circumstances for its own ends", what is really happening is that the working class is altering the relations of production so as to bring them "in sync" with objective conditions.

But if objective conditions do not permit this alteration, then the attempt must fail.


If "objective conditions" alone determine the victory of the proletariat then what is the use of political organisation, action, agitation, etc.?

It's the attempt to "speed up" the process, of course.

If we think that something desirable is possible or even inevitable, it is "in our interests" to try and make it happen "sooner"...that we might enjoy the consequences with minimal delay.

Can such efforts actually "speed up" the revolution? And the answer is yes -- though to a limited degree. Once objective conditions have made communism possible, then the only question is "how soon"? It doesn't really matter at that point (historically speaking) whether the revolution breaks out at once or in 10 years or in 100 years. We "organize, act, agitate", etc. in order that the revolution might occur as soon as it becomes objectively possible without any unnecessary delay.

And we do this because it's objectively in our own interests to do it. Who wants to be a wage-slave for a single second longer than necessary?

You have to remember (and guard against) the occupational hazard of revolutionaries: over-optimism. The conceit that we can do "anything we want to" regardless of objective conditions has done more harm to our purposes than anything else. It leads to adventurism, commandism, and substitutionism.

It leads to defeat and demoralization and despair.

Communists need to learn how to be rational and clear-headed about objective material reality -- what things are really like now and what things would have to be like before communist revolution would make sense.

Otherwise, like the 20th century Leninist parties, we'll just end up flailing about in confusion before sinking into some reformist swamp.

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

PS: It so happens that the Lukacs work on History and Class Consciousness is on the shelf at my local public library -- so I will have another crack at it. :)

[Vanguard1917]

I don't remember Marx and Engels actually saying that...but let's suppose they did. What could they have meant by it?

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels write (i paraphrase) that capitalism creates divisions between the workers themselves - therefore, every class struggles is a political struggle. This is actually a very good example of the materialist approach. What Marx is saying is that capitalism - "objectively" - creates divisions within the workig class, just as it can create unity. As a result of this, the political struggle of the working class is actually a necessity, an indispensable part of the revolutionary process.


Can such [political] efforts actually "speed up" the revolution? And the answer is yes -- though to a limited degree.

Like i said above, our political efforts are a requisite of the revolutionary process. The limited importance that you give to political action is quite remarkable for someone who calls himself a Marxist. For example:


But if objective conditions do not permit this alteration, then the attempt must fail.

You talk of "objective conditions" like a Christian who talks of Fate. Where is the active working class (the revolutionary subject) in all this?


The conceit that we can do "anything we want to" regardless of objective conditions has done more harm to our purposes than anything else.

We can't do whatever we want; but we can study objective conditions, study social movement, and (as revolutionaries) make vital interventions.


PS: It so happens that the Lukacs work on History and Class Consciousness is on the shelf at my local public library -- so I will have another crack at it.

Dont forget to wipe that thick layer of dust off it first.

[Lamanov]

Economic and political struggle are two sides of the same coin when it comes to a revolutionary process. But there's a nececary rule: political struggle cannot exist without economic struggle, and economic struggle cannot exist without "objective conditions" (don't get me wrong: it exists, always - but not to a revolutionary level). As much as they are basis of capitalist society - they will be the basis for communism too.

If someone aspires to claim that political can activate economic struggle, he's gonna have to prove it, because history doesn't.

It's these "objective conditions" which determine all: amount of exploatation, size of proletarian mass, it's potential power, it's conscience, etc.
Once economic struggle reaches it's peak, political struggle will be the product of organization of the masses which is a product of revolutionary situation. We've seen through history how conditions make even the boldest ones who though they can "do whatever they want" adopt to reality. Sometimes those bold turn out to be crushed by reality as they turn into their opposites (like Lukacs contradicting his own theories).

Once there are "objective conditions" and economic struggle - agitation and organization will be rather "easy", and their goal will be much clearer, and as redstar2000 said: they will make sense. For everyone.

[Vanguard1917]

It's these "objective conditions" which determine all: amount of exploatation, size of proletarian mass, it's potential power, it's conscience, etc.

Objective conditions do instill a certain consciousness into the working class - but not revolutionary consciousness. Which class is in the strongest position to "control" objective circumstances in capitalist society? Of course, as the ruling class, it is the bourgeoisie. So if "objective conditions" determine consciousness, it must follow that - on an objective level - it is actually the ruling class that determines the consciousness of the rest of society. As Marx and Engels point out in the German Ideology, "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. The class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force" and (i paraphrase) the rest of society is subjected to their ideas.

Do you not see now that the "objective conditions" of capitalist society actually give was to bourgeois ideology? Which is of course why Marx insisted that the working class must organise as an independent political force, free (as much as possible) from the restraints of bourgeois ideology.

[Lamanov]

Bourgeoisie as a class cannot "control" "objective conditions" as a mean to restrain the revolution. It cannot stop further development of means of production. It can only destroy them episodicaly through wars, or restrict private properity through ethatistic measures.

It's in the nature of the ruling class to satisfy their intrests as best as they can, as individuals or corporations - not only struggling with the working class but competing with each other. Progress and development can't be "controled".

Bourgeoisie cannot "control" conscience of the proletarian mass because it has no same economic background. It can influence it thorough public means, but that can't be efficient forever because ideology of the falling class is usually discredited.

You can tell the proletarian that he's not being exploited. But i doubt that he's gonna beleve you. Especially if the party activists and union colegues have convinced him otherwise.

That's what agitation and education are for - that's what the parties are for. Rest of society is subjected - but not hypnotised by it.

Ruling classes on the verge of doom can never control "objective" conditions nor conscience of the masses. If they could - we would still be living in the forms of ancient slavery.

[grammar edit]

[Vanguard1917]

Bourgeoisie as a class cannot "control" "objective conditions" as a mean to restrain the revolution.

This is why i dont like to isolate the term "objective conditions". Subjective forces are interlinked with objective forces. The bourgeoisie cannot control "objective conditions" as long as subjective revolutionary forces (i.e. the revolutionary movement of the working masses) are strong enough.


Bourgeoisie cannot "control" conscience of the proletarian mass because it has no same economic background. It can influence it thorough public means, but that can't be efficient forever because ideology of the falling class is usually discredited.

If the ruling class is "failing" this is also down to subjective factors. Objective and subjective factors are interlinked in a totality - a total force.


You can tell the proletarian that he's not being exploited. But i doubt that he's gonna beleve you. Especially if the party activists and union colegues have convinced him otherwise.

Almost hitting the nail on the head here. Workers are convinced through political means as much as they are convinced through economic circumstances.


That's what agitation and education are for - that's what the parties are for.

But the party is not a grouping standing above and outside of the working class. It a part of the working class - its most class conscious part.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:42 PM
But matters are more complicated than Engels anticipated. It's quite true that a factory, in principle, could be built almost anywhere.

But the factors that determine why a factory is constructed here and not there are numerous...and not to be passed over lightly.

It's very interesting! You proclaimed as though you are completely a second Mr.Duhring "how Herr Dühring considers the separation of town and country as "inevitable in the nature of things" (Anti Duhring - Engels). You thought that

When a corporation is deciding where to build a new factory, it must consider (1) the trainability of the potential workforce; (2) the cost of moving raw materials and sub-components to its new location; (3) the quality of the existing infrastructure; (4) the costs of moving the final product to where its customers are located; (5) tax breaks and incentives that might be offered; and, perhaps most importantly, (6) the cost of labor power in the various alternative locations.

In addition, there seems to be a "synergistic" effect when factories that produce similar or competing products are located in one place...with people moving from one corporation to another more or less continuously, this appears to stimulate innovation and fresh approaches to "industry problems". The history of "Silicon Valley" is instructive in this regard.
Meanwhile you still admited

It's quite true that a factory, in principle, could be built almost anywhere.
And later, after a moment of hesitating, you asserted that

though it may be possible to reduce them somewhat
How do "almost anywhere" and "reduce them somewhat"?
Obviously as we examine historical process of mode of production in the past it'll be very easy to realize that the seperation of town and country has been always narrowed considerably. That's due to the development of mode of production. It's true that the more the great industry develops, the more towns it creates. Thus from where do capitalists create these new towns if not from countries "by constant flight from the towns into the country" (Anti-Duhring - Engels)?
You asserted that "matters are more complicated than Engels anticipated" because "the factors that determine why a factory is constructed here and not there are numerous...and not to be passed over lightly" and then you brought up a series of reasons to prove that the differences between town and country can be reduced "somewhat" at most. But you didn't realize that those reasons are entirely born by capitalism and capitalist mode of production. So long as we abolish the capitalist character of production the reasons you gave out will disappear and basic of seperation of country and town will be no longer. While capitalists always want a urban concentration the productive forces always trend socialization. Thus, "Only a society which makes it possible for its productive forces to dovetail harmoniously into each other on the basis of one single vast plan can allow industry to be distributed over the whole country in the way best adapted to its own development, and to the maintenance and development of the other elements of production" (Engels).

I am not optimistic about the possibilities of "abolishing the differences" between rural and urban life...though it may be possible to reduce them somewhat.
Obviously you just viewed the matter within scope of capitalist society. You regconized that we may be possible to reduce those differences, but why? Why may it reduce and why may not it be a complete abolishing in capitalism? Because capitalist mode of production is at once impulsing and preventing it. I think it's absolutely not that Engels didn't anticipate "complicated matters" as you asserted but that you didn't be aware of naturalness of matter.

This would require an almost complete re-engineering and restructuring of existing sewage systems...something that might be done over a century or so. But I'm not sure people would be willing to undertake such a massive task...even though it might make good ecological sense.
When brought up the matters about "and enable their excrement to be used for the production of plants instead of for the production of disease" and steam-power, Engels just used them as specific examples. You supposed that the development of science and technology will be a uttermost effect method to keep town still being town and country still being country. But this development will be also a major factor for abolishing the differences between country and town. Many new industrial branches will appear, many requirements for extending market and enlarging scope of factory, using advantages of country to service production will gradually change many countries into towns. But in capitalism, the tendency of urban concentration will always prevent this process. "It is true that in the huge towns civilisation has bequeathed us a heritage which it will take much time and trouble to get rid of. But it must and will be got rid of, however, protracted a process it may be" (Engel).

[Lamanov]

You don't get it. If "objective conditions" don't exist nobody can do jack.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Almost hitting the nail on the head here. Workers are convinced through political means as much as they are convinced through economic circumstances.

But that's it. That's where the party struggle stops. Parties can only do so much - educate and agitate, and help in organization. Once the Party takes lead of political struggle it loses objective sight of the situation and pursuits for political power regardless of the mass. Party can only show the way, it must not charge through it.


But the party is not a grouping standing above and outside of the working class. It a part of the working class - its most class conscious part.

That depends on how it's acting.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)What Marx is saying is that capitalism - "objectively" - creates divisions within the working class, just as it can create unity. As a result of this, the political struggle of the working class is actually a necessity, an indispensable part of the revolutionary process.[/b]

This seems to turn on the precise meaning of the word "political".

When Marx and Engels referred to "political struggle" in the Communist Manifesto, they had a very clear definition in mind. At that time, they were hoping that bourgeois democratic revolutions would permit a proletarian majority to win state power through an electoral majority.

That was a naive and mis-placed hope.

The question here is what exactly you mean when you speak of "political struggle"?


You talk of "objective conditions" like a Christian who talks of Fate. Where is the active working class (the revolutionary subject) in all this?

Christians actually believe that "everything that happens" is "part of God's plan"...and understanding that plan is neither necessary nor even possible.

Objective conditions are, on the contrary, possible to understand...at least in principle.

It simply makes no sense to speak of "proletarian revolution" in a country where the proletariat is a small minority of the total population. That doesn't mean that a revolution that calls itself proletarian "can't take place"...it simply means that objective conditions will not permit the things that a real proletarian revolution would do.

If you want to add a third floor to a building, objective conditions demand that a second floor be built first. Rhetoric about being "a subject of history" is no substitute for that second floor.


We can't do whatever we want; but we can study objective conditions, study social movement, and (as revolutionaries) make vital interventions.

But where does your "revolutionary impulse" to make "vital" interventions come from? Were it not for objective conditions, there would be no revolutionaries.

When favorable objective conditions appear, they create revolutionaries...and sometimes in enormous numbers.

You are focusing on how people subjective react to the presence of revolutionary objective conditions...but there's no question which came first.


Don't forget to wipe that thick layer of dust off it first.

:lol: Probably true -- I was surprised that the library catalog didn't locate the work in the "basement stacks"...that's where they keep most of the Marxist books.


Objective conditions do instill a certain consciousness into the working class - but not revolutionary consciousness.

Yes, this was Lenin's idea...but it was clearly refuted by the February 1917 Petrograd rebellion. The revolutionary parties and groups of all varieties were small and weak at that time -- and while their ideas certainly played a role, I don't see how it can be disputed that objective conditions did create revolutionary consciousness among huge numbers of both workers and peasants.

You see, that's really what it takes to make a revolution...millions and millions of people who are totally fed up with the old order.

"Vanguards" are barely worth a footnote in this process.


Which class is in the strongest position to "control" objective circumstances in capitalist society?

No, that misses the point. They make economic and political decisions that they imagine are "autonomous" and that they think will "reinforce" their despotism. But if Marx was right, those decisions are likewise constrained by objective conditions...they do what they must and in doing so bring their own ruin upon themselves.

Does the American ruling class "have" to engage in one imperial adventure after another? Yes! Will these adventures ultimately weaken and even destroy the Empire? Yes! Couldn't they develop an alternate policy that would actually serve their own interests better? No, they cannot!

"Grow or die" is the "law" that governs modern empires.


Originally posted by The German [email protected]
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.

Static. The observation is valid most of the time. But when a particular form of class society runs into severe problems, other ideas emerge to challenge the orthodoxy of the old ruling class.

Marxism is such a powerful challenge that the bourgeoisie's own colleges and universities -- their "idea factories" -- are thoroughly permeated with, at least, bits and pieces and chunks of Marx's ideas...often by professors who are entirely unconscious of where some of their "best ideas" came from.

The "neo-cons" are frantic on this matter...but, thus far, to no avail.

It very much reminds me, in fact, of the sort of pre-revolutionary ideological struggles that took place in 19th century Russia or 18th century France. The "best minds" of the bourgeoisie know that "things cannot go on like this" but differ wildly on "what will come next".

And this ideological struggle does "seep" into the mass media...there is a kind of corrosive "drip" onto the shibboleths of bourgeois reality that is taking place.

It will have an effect far beyond what anyone can imagine now.


This is why I don't like to isolate the term "objective conditions". Subjective forces are interlinked with objective forces.

Yes, but that can be better said: subjective forces derive from objective forces.


But the party is not a grouping standing above and outside of the working class. It is a part of the working class - its most class conscious part.

Only in a "Platonic" sense. Actual "vanguards" have generally been led by middle-class or upper-class dissidents...leaders, moreover, who have been essentially unaccountable to working class members.


Hopes Guevara
It's very interesting! You proclaimed as though you are completely a second Mr. Dühring "how Herr Dühring considers the separation of town and country as "inevitable in the nature of things".

Well now, I'm hardly taking the position that Dühring took.

In fact, if we really want to speculate about the possibilities, it seems to me entirely possible that ultimately very few people will live in the countryside at all. There is already considerable research taking place in the manufacturing of food on a factory-like basis -- growing meat from cloned cells in a vat, etc. Today in Cuba, the city of Havana raises all of its plant food requirements except for rice.

Engels had a well-justified contempt for the cities of his time...which generally were pestholes of filth and disease.

But cities do not "have" to be that way.

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

[black]

Lenin's idea...was clearly refuted by the February 1917 Petrograd rebellion. The revolutionary parties and groups of all varieties were small and weak at that time -- and while their ideas certainly played a role, I don't see how it can be disputed that objective conditions did create revolutionary consciousness among huge numbers of both workers and peasants.

You see, that's really what it takes to make a revolution...millions and millions of people who are totally fed up with the old order.

"Vanguards" are barely worth a footnote in this process

*clap clap*

I do wish more of our comrades would realise this.

[Vanguard1917]

The question here is what exactly you mean when you speak of "political struggle"?

By political struggle i dont just mean the struggle for workers' political/state control.

I'm also talking about the struggle for the minds of the working class: the idelogical struggle. As Marx says, when an idea grasps the masses it becomes a material force. This "subjective" struggle is not at all separate from "objective circumstances"; in fact, the two things are so closely interlinked that it we cannot simply say:


subjective forces derive from objective forces.

In capitalist society, for example, there are two social forces that we consider to be key: capital and labour, capitalist and worker. We also see that revolutionary potential lies with the latter force: the working masses. But the working class can also be a defender of bourgeois ideology/politics: reformism, conservatism, fascism. In the 19th century England was the most advanced capitalist society and, in "objective" terms", had the most advanced working class. Yet, in political terms, the working class of Germany (an economically inferior country) was far more developed; Engels even called the German proletariat the vanguard of the international workers' movement. What can explain this? Not the strenght of the political organisation of the proletariat?

Why do you not accept that we revolutionaries can make critical interventions in the actions and decisions of this social force?The capitalist leaders certainly do: whether to appease or repress, whether to make reformist policies or reactionary ones, whether to feed the hungry or starve the hungry, free the economy or regulate the economy. They make subjective decisions - based on objective realities - and maintain their rule over the working class. Isnt this the story of the past two centuries?

This has to be countered. The capitalist leadership cannot be left - by revolutionaries - to be the only "subjective force"; that would be total fatalistic defeatism on our behalf.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
By political struggle...I'm also talking about the struggle for the minds of the working class: the idealogical struggle.

Well, no one would argue that there should be "no" ideological struggle...that's what actually takes place on message boards (good ones like this board, anyway).

There's indeed very little such struggle in the ritualized dance of "capital and labor"...how could there be?

It's only when workers take matters into their own hands -- in wildcat strikes, for example -- that an "opening" appears for ideological struggle. This is when workers get a glimpse of the real nature of capitalist society -- the firings, the use of scabs, the police brutality, the lies, etc....not to mention the bootlicking servility of their own so-called "leadership".


In the 19th century, England was the most advanced capitalist society and, in "objective terms", had the most advanced working class. Yet, in political terms, the working class of Germany (an economically inferior country) was far more developed; Engels even called the German proletariat the vanguard of the international workers' movement.

But Engels was wrong about that, wasn't he? Engels thought that German workers voting for the Social Democratic Party was "evidence" of "political advancement"...the same workers who a decade or so later indulged themselves in an orgy of nationalist war-lust.

Note that it was not a matter of simple betrayal by the SPD leadership -- though that also happened. But the rank-and-file membership of the SPD enthusiastically supported German imperialism -- and, except for Russia and the United States, the social democrats in every European country supported "their own" ruling class...as did the working classes generally.

To speak as Engels did of the working class in one country being more advanced than that of another turned out to be a nearly meaningless distinction.

They were all wretchedly backward...or else World War I would have ended in a few weeks with continent-wide proletarian revolution.


Why do you not accept that we revolutionaries cannot make critical interventions in the actions and decisions of this social force? The capitalist leaders certainly do: whether to appease or repress, whether to make reformist policies or reactionary ones, whether to feed the hungry or starve the hungry, free the economy or regulate the economy. They make subjective decisions - based on objective realities - and maintain their rule over the working class. Isn't this the story of the past two centuries?

I am not saying that revolutionaries "cannot" intervene; I'm saying that intervention will succeed or fail depending entirely on the prevailing objective conditions.

The wide-range of "options" that the capitalist class appears to have stems from the fact that they are the ruling class and possess considerable material force to bring to bear on any problem they may have.

But they are not free to do "anything they like" either. When German capitalists "hired Hitler" to build them an empire, the consequences were catastrophic...there were simply not enough Germans to pull it off. On the eastern front, the Germans simply ran out of manpower.

Yet what other decision could the German ruling class make? Not having an empire was a rising threat to capitalism within Germany itself...the German capitalists needed a political state apparatus that would forcibly open up a chunk of the planet to German exploitation.

In fact, this is a good illustration of the trap that capitalism creates for its own "masters". They must have an expanding empire...but the politicians and generals that they choose to achieve this have repeatedly proven to be over-ambitious and incompetent -- leading to seriously bad consequences (or threat of same) for the capitalists themselves.

Capitalists are just as bound by objective conditions as those who would overthrow them. If you fall victim to the swollen head and vaulting ambition, the conceit that you can "make history" on a grand scale...you ought to know what the outcome will be.

The seizure of power by a "revolutionary elite" will not accomplish revolution...and may do much to delay it.

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

[Vanguard1917]

I am not saying that revolutionaries "cannot" intervene; I'm saying that intervention will succeed or fail depending entirely on the prevailing objective conditions.

This isn't intervention. This is tailism. I'm talking about the potential of the working class to smash the prevailing "objective conditions". Your approach, on the other hand, is fatalistic: i.e. you believe that history is governed by an inevitable process in which human beings play a limited role. For you, "objective conditions" are mystical, above and out of the reach of human activity.


If you fall victim to the swollen head and vaulting ambition, the conceit that you can "make history" on a grand scale...you ought to know what the outcome will be.

Have you ever considered that the reason for why we live in an era of unprecedented class peace is subjective just as it is objective? In another post you talk of how Marxist ideas dominate academic institutions. Once upon a time - when society was engaged in real class struggle - such ideas, on varying levels and forms, did dominate such institutions. But those days are over. Nowadays it is the postmodernist logic - again, on varying levels and forms - that dominates the universities. The key characteristic of postmodernism is its degradation of the history-making role of humanity. For them, any project that the human subject embarks on will either lead to genocide or the gulag. Whereas Marxism sees the woking class as a mighty revolutionary force, the postmodernists see that any attempts to transform society ("grand narratives") will lead to mass destruction. These are the ruling ideas of our pathetic ruling class. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be influenced by them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
I'm talking about the potential of the working class to smash the prevailing "objective conditions".

The only consequence of any attempt to "smash objective conditions" will be some form of barbarism or savagery...which indeed characterized much of rural Russia during the civil war.


Your approach, on the other hand, is fatalistic: i.e. you believe that history is governed by an inevitable process in which human beings play a limited role.

Since the process involves the evolution of human societies, it's pretty obvious that humans play a central role.

What you are imagining is that human will plays a "central role" -- that the universe is arranged in such a way that "all things are possible" to those who "want it strongly enough".

Nope. Human "will" on a mass scale is itself a product of objective conditions...and can only be realized to the extent that objective conditions permit.

If the working class does not yet "want" communism, you cannot thrust it upon them even at gunpoint.

Your "critical intervention" will be short-lived and despised.


For you, "objective conditions" are mystical, above and out of the reach of human activity.

No, there's nothing "mystical" about objective reality. And it is not "out of reach of human activity" -- indeed, objective conditions are largely the product of human activity on a mass scale.

What's "out of reach" about them is that they cannot be significantly altered by the will of any small group.


Have you ever considered that the reason for why we live in an era of unprecedented class peace is subjective just as it is objective?

The subjectivity is a product of the objective conditions.

In the "west", capitalism/imperialism is still working successfully -- that is objective fact. As long as that continues, those who embrace anti-capitalist ideologies will be considered nutballs.

There is no "class peace", of course...class struggle continues "in the background" at all times in any class society. But the reason there's no coherent anti-capitalist opposition at this time is that "the system is still working" and very few people grasp that this will not always be the case.

For the most part, people gripe...but they do not yet really struggle. There is not yet an objective imperative to do so.


In another post you talk of how Marxist ideas dominate academic institutions.

No, I said they permeate academic institutions...mostly in "bits and pieces and chunks". I agree with you that "post modernism" is more fashionable these days -- a harmless form of academic fluff that attempts to neutralize any coherent critique of the prevailing social order in advance.

But it has no substance to it...and I suspect that even the people who pretend to take it seriously are laughing all the way to the bank.

In my opinion, the real direction of modern bourgeois ideology is that of Leo Strauss -- a robust doctrine of imperial "right", the "natural supremacy" of a ruling elite, etc.

Objective conditions suggest that the ruling class needs this kind of ideology in the coming era...something more sophisticated than 20th century fascism but that will accomplish the same purposes.

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

[Vanguard1917]

Human "will" on a mass scale is itself a product of objective conditions...and can only be realized to the extent that objective conditions permit.

It's not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their being that determines their consciousness. So says Marx. This is true. But Marx also realised that being and consciousness do not have a rigid coexistance. Being can give way to false consciousness, which is a central part of Marx's thesis on human consciousness. True consciousness, in Marx's view, is class consciousness. But this consciousness does not come about automatically as a result of being; it can be blurred by religion, nationalism, and other forms of false consciousness. The material conditions of capitalist society - the conflict between capital and labour - can give way to differing levels of consciousness. In times of class struggle, capitalist political forces cloud class consciousness in whatever way that is necessary to maintain capitalist rule: by religion, chauvanism, racism, etc. The working class is bombarded with false consciousness by the political forces of the bourgeoisie. The purpose of being a revolutionary is to counter these political forces.

My main point here is that a confrontation of the working class against the capitalist class on political grounds is vital.

I also have problems with what you say on postmodernism and the stability of the capitalism... but i haven't got the time or energy at the moment. To be continued...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard 1917
Being can give way to false consciousness, which is a central part of Marx's thesis on human consciousness.

The Problem of Class Consciousness (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083627508&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Vanguard1917]

When does a working class develop into "a class for itself"? Can it happen at any time under any conditions? Or are there certain material conditions that must be present for real proletarian consciousness to emerge?

Class consciousness emerges in times of class conflict. Class conflict can emerge for various reasons: economic instability, imperialist crisis, etc., as you point out. In times of class conflict, the political organisation of the working class is i think the basis for working class consciousness to emerge.

Capitalist instability will create the grounds for the emergence of class conflict, and the political organisation of the working class will give way to revolutionary class consciousness. History shows us that middle class radicals will indeed play a leading role in the formation of these organisations.

As Lenin pointed out, all ideas in capitalist society come from the bourgeois intellegentsia. This is not important. The important thing is the class basis of ideas. It doesn't matter to us that the founders of Marxism (Marx and Engels) were members of the bourgeoisie, married to an aristocrat, or born into a wealthy factory-owning family. What matters is the class basis of their ideas.

As soon as a workers' political organisation begins to embrace non-working class ideas, and as soon as its politics becomes diluted with such ideas, it's then that we have problems.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
In times of class conflict, the political organisation of the working class is, I think, the basis for working class consciousness to emerge.

In May of 1968, the "political organization of the French working class" was the Communist Party of France and its associated trade union. By sheer weight of numbers, this was the outfit that "should" have "assumed leadership" and "made" a proletarian revolution.

They not only did not do that -- citing unfavorable objective conditions -- but worse, provided important assistance to the bourgeoisie in sending the workers "back to work".

So much for the "political organization of the working class".

A careful class analysis of the leading circles of the French Communist Party might turn out to be very instructive...where did those bastards come from?

It seems to me, in retrospect, that the decisive point of class struggle is reached only when the working class establishes its own organs of self-government...a step in which "vanguards" have played little or no role.

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

[Vanguard1917]

They not only did not do that -- citing unfavorable objective conditions -- but worse, provided important assistance to the bourgeoisie in sending the workers "back to work".

So doesnt this show you that PCF wasnt up to the political challenge that was vital in 1968? Instead you take the historic actions of a Stalinist party in order to refute the vital importance of political organisation. If the PCF hadnt been dominated by Stalinist bureaucrats, and if their policies had not been devised wholly under the conservative influences of the Comintern but had been devised alongside the revolutionary currents existing in 1968 France, would things have not been different? The fact that the PCF cited unfavourable objective conditions as an excuse to take a conservative position is alone a sure sign of opportunism. Such parties are not what Lenin envisaged when he talked of the vanguard. An intelligent reading of Lenin's writings on the matter will clearly show that Lenin wanted a party that would always be at the forefront of the revolutionary movement (hence the word vanguard), rather than a party tailing at the back, twiddling phumbs and making convenient excuses for their opportunistic policies. The official Communist parties throughout Europe at that time were not Leninist parties - as you like to refer to them as. They made their policies around the conservative foreign policy demands of the world's second superpower. Regardless of what bourgeois historians like to believe, there is no link between Leninism and Stalinism. They are two completely different phenomena.


A careful class analysis of the leading circles of the French Communist Party might turn out to be very instructive...where did those bastards come from?

While I'm not a big fan of middle class radicals bringing in their middle class habits into the party, a workers' party does not automatically degerate because it has some middle class members at the top. The party degenerates when its leadership "loses touch" with the movement. Leaders of working class background are just as capable of this.


It seems to me, in retrospect, that the decisive point of class struggle is reached only when the working class establishes its own organs of self-government...a step in which "vanguards" have played little or no role.

In order to be a revolutionary class Marxism tells us that the working class must act independently. The vanguard plays a major role in this, in that it brings together the most advanced sections of the working class in order to lead the movement.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Instead you take the historic actions of a Stalinist party in order to refute the vital importance of political organisation.

The French Communist Party claimed to be the vanguard in France and, in weight of numbers, that could hardly be disputed. On what grounds can you legitimately question that claim?

That they preferred Joe to Leon? :lol:


If the PCF hadn't been dominated by Stalinist bureaucrats, and if their policies had not been devised wholly under the conservative influences of the Comintern but had been devised alongside the revolutionary currents existing in 1968 France, would things have not been different?

Maybe, maybe not. The Comintern was dissolved back in 1943 or thereabouts. Stalin died in 1953. It seems a bit of a stretch to blame Joe for what happened 15 years after his death.

Do you think things would have gone better if Trotskyist bureaucrats had been in charge?


The fact that the PCF cited unfavourable objective conditions as an excuse to take a conservative position is alone a sure sign of opportunism.

Did not Lenin himself do the same thing during the "July Days" in 1917? Or in establishing the NEP in 1921?

Was Lenin an "opportunist"?


The official Communist parties throughout Europe at that time were not Leninist parties - as you like to refer to them as.

Why not? They had all the appearances of being Leninist parties -- "democratic" centralism, party discipline, etc. They paid verbal tribute to Lenin on ceremonial occasions, flew the red flags, marched on May Day, etc.

Is it your contention that "only" Trotskyists have the "right" to call themselves Leninist?

That looks like a "trademark" dispute to me...and one in which I may not be qualified to judge.


While I'm not a big fan of middle class radicals bringing in their middle class habits into the party, a workers' party does not automatically degenerate because it has some middle class members at the top.

Why not? Why wouldn't such people try to use the party that they now command in their own (middle) class interests?

It would be the "natural" thing for them to do, wouldn't it?


In order to be a revolutionary class Marxism tells us that the working class must act independently. The vanguard plays a major role in this, in that it brings together the most advanced sections of the working class in order to lead the movement.

Those "most advanced sections" were rather disappointing in France...and many other places.

Your assertion is not supported by history.

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

[Vanguard1917]

The French Communist Party claimed to be the vanguard in France and, in weight of numbers, that could hardly be disputed. On what grounds can you legitimately question that claim?

A vanguard party is a party that is always at the forefront of the movement: in the sense that it never lags behind or takes reactionary stances. Membership numbers have nothing to do with it. (In fact, Lenin's reasoning for restricted party membership is precisely so that the party only contains the foremost revolutionary elements within it.) From what i know, the PCF was never really a very ambitious party. They concentrated on their regional strongholds in order to gain advantage in their bargaining games with the capitalists, they didnt really dare to take up a more general opposition to capitalism (they decided not to support the 1968 student "riots"), and their international policies were full of shit (they supported the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia - which was also in 1968). This is hardly a party "at the forefront of the revolutionary movement".


Maybe, maybe not. The Comintern was dissolved back in 1943 or thereabouts. Stalin died in 1953. It seems a bit of a stretch to blame Joe for what happened 15 years after his death.

Stalinism lasted (and dominated the left) for almost 40 years after Stalin's death.


Did not Lenin himself do the same thing during the "July Days" in 1917? Or in establishing the NEP in 1921?

Was Lenin an "opportunist"?

I said: citing objective conditions to justify a conservative position. I don't see the introduction of the NEP as a conservative position.


They had all the appearances of being Leninist parties -- "democratic" centralism, party discipline, etc. They paid verbal tribute to Lenin on ceremonial occasions, flew the red flags, marched on May Day, etc.

Exactly: appearances! Symbolic posturing.

Democratic centralism and party discipline meant one thing to Lenin, and something completely different to the Stalinists.


Why not? Why wouldn't such people try to use the party that they now command in their own (middle) class interests?

It would be the "natural" thing for them to do, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. In times of class struggle, sections of the middle classes join ranks with the working class. If pursueing middle class interests is the only thing that the middle classes are capable of - if its 'the "natural" thing for them to do' - then, arguably, history would never have witnessed Marxist theory.


Those "most advanced sections" were rather disappointing in France...and many other places.

See above. The PCF was not a vanguard party.

[redstar2000]

Who was it who said that trying to discuss things with Trotskyists is like arguing with a brick wall?

You make one claim after another with no attempt to justify any of them.

Some of your claims are simply embarrassing.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
A vanguard party is a party that is always at the forefront of the movement: in the sense that it never lags behind or takes reactionary stances.

Then what of the Bolsheviks in March and April of 1917? When Lenin got back to Petrograd, he was appalled at the Bolshevik stance and said that the masses were "far ahead" of the Bolsheviks!

"Never lags behind"? The record suggests that "usually lags behind" is closer to the mark.


Stalinism lasted (and dominated the left) for almost 40 years after Stalin's death.

That makes no sense at all...unless "Stalinism" is just a word that covers any Leninist tendency that you dislike.

By 1965 or so, Stalin's ideas (and image) had faded almost to the point of invisibility...if indeed not even earlier. The number of people who think Stalin "got it (mostly) right" has been vanishingly small for decades.

Have you ever heard anyone say "what we need to do is to get back to Stalin -- he was the guy who really understood Marx and Lenin"???

I mean in real life...not some crank on a message board!


I don't see the introduction of the NEP as a conservative position.

Then take the question up with Lenin...he certainly thought of it as a huge retreat from the goals of the revolution.

It was, after all, the restoration of capitalism.


Democratic centralism and party discipline meant one thing to Lenin, and something completely different to the Stalinists.

It all goes back to the 10th Party Congress in March of 1921 -- when Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky all agreed on compulsory "unity in the party" with "iron discipline". This formula was also imposed on all parties that wished to join the Comintern -- in a document attributed to Lenin himself.


In times of class struggle, sections of the middle classes join ranks with the working class. If pursuing middle class interests is the only thing that the middle classes are capable of - if it's 'the "natural" thing for them to do' - then, arguably, history would never have witnessed Marxist theory.

Marx and Engels were not "a section" of the middle class -- they were two guys.

All of these "vanguard parties" are characteristically dominated by a whole "section" of middle class elements.

I think it's quite reasonable to expect them to serve their own class interests...particularly in pursuit of reformism, seats in parliament, ministries in capitalist-dominated coalition governments, etc.

Once more, it's the "natural" thing for them to do.

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

[Vanguard1917]

Then what of the Bolsheviks in March and April of 1917? When Lenin got back to Petrograd, he was appalled at the Bolshevik stance and said that the masses were "far ahead" of the Bolsheviks!

When did i ever use the Bolshevik party as a complete model of the vanguard ? The Bolsheviks had strong elements within it and they had weak elements within it - largely in accordance with the historical circumstances in Russia.

I'm talking about a principle to be aspired towards.


By 1965 or so, Stalin's ideas (and image) had faded almost to the point of invisibility...if indeed not even earlier. The number of people who think Stalin "got it (mostly) right" has been vanishingly small for decades.

Have you ever heard anyone say "what we need to do is to get back to Stalin -- he was the guy who really understood Marx and Lenin"???

Stalinism is the name that we give to the social system that existed during (and after) Stalin's rule. You dont have to be a supporter of "Stalin-the-man" to be a Stalinist. Kruschev may have denounced Stalin after his death, but he was a Stalinist in that he represented the same system.


Then take the question up with Lenin...he certainly thought of it as a huge retreat from the goals of the revolution.

It was, after all, the restoration of capitalism.

Lenin saw the NEP as a temporary measure that was necessary to rebuild Russia after the Civil War, and as long as Russia remained isolated. It was not conservative in that it aimed to rebuild industry in order to rebuild the social, economic and political base of the "proletarian dictatorship":i.e. the working class.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:36 AM
Also, what would does "state" mean?

This is "State and Revolution" by Lenine. It will explain clearly what state is. If you have leisure time, read it State and Revolution - Chapter 1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm)