The principle of proletarian dictatorship [Archive]

Red Powers

21st November 2005, 19:26

This is mine from the last DoP thread:

First off I think it's worth keeping in mind the possibility that Marx puts more than a hint of irony in his use of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat." He' comparing it to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which of course is a dictatorship of a minority over a majority, exactly like every other form of class rule except one. The class rule of the proletariat is a "dictatorship" of the majority over the minority. It is unique in the annals of class society.

I find it helpful in understanding the DoP to contrast it with the bourgeoisie's dictatorship. What form does this dictatorship take? Well, the bourgeoisie can exercise its dictatorship in a multitude of forms -- constitutional monarchy, liberal democratic republic, parliament or presidential system, an authoritarian military junta, a fascist or corporatist dictatorship, a theocracy, a one party "communist" state -- take your pick. How is it that the bourgeoisie can exercise dictatorship in all these various forms? It is able to do this because its dictatorship is actually rooted not in the political system but in the relations of production, that is wage labor and capital, which are actually two sides of the same social relation. Each time a capitalist hires a proletarian they are able to exercise dictatorship over that prole. As a class the bourgeoisie exercises dictatorship over the whole proletariat and it can do this without benefit of the state if it needs to.

In fact, bourgeois dictatorship exists before there is a bourgeois state and as long as the capital/wage labor relation exists there is a danger of capitalist restoration even if their state has been smashed to little bits. The bourgeois state does not create their dictatorship it merely functions to enforce it. And the main task in enforcing their dictatorship is to keep the proletariat down, keep them from organizing as a class overthrowing the bourg. and abolishing wage labor/capital.

Proletarian dictatorship is completely different than this. In fact it is a totally unique social formation. It is, in the first place a dictatorship of a majority and here is where the irony comes in. The proletariat when organized as the ruling class creates something new in human history. For the first time an exploited majority is in control of society. The proletariat has some awesome tasks at this point. It cannot free itself without liberating all of society. And in order to do that it must immediately move to limit and then abolish wage labor. We've seen that any kind of long "transition" stage will inevitably lead back to capitalism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is merely the proletariat (the majority) organized as the ruling class to accomplish these goals. Specifically, I would think that it would consist of councils or soviets like in the Paris Commune or the early Soviet Republic. And at first there would have to be a well organized military force to prevent counter-revolution. But this "state," which should be unlike any other state will have as its main task the provision of more and more goods and services outside the money economy. You know first free housing, free health care, free clothing, free groceries etc. so that you are eventually getting rid of money.

I don't really know what all the details would be but as a communist who is not a leninist, I would insist on freedom of expression for all except counter-revolutionaries. And I also would hope that there are loads of anarchists around (as long as they're not lobbing bombs :D ) because I think their insistence on statelessness will keep the DoP moving in the right direction. But I don't see how the capitalists can be overthrown and kept from reestablishing themselves without organs of proletarian class rule.

JKP

22nd November 2005, 01:13

We'll have organs of class rule, just without a centralized state and without your "dear leader"

EDIT: Additionally, what you described is not the dictatorship of the proletariat. See the Engels quote.

red_che

22nd November 2005, 05:06

Mainly, DOP is an instrument by the proletariat directed against the bourgeoisie. Here is a quote from Lenin.

"And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which f o r t h e f i r s t time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the moneybags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that where there is suppression, where there is violence, there is no freedom and no democracy."

www.marx2mao.com (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html)

wet blanket

22nd November 2005, 05:16

(as long as they're not lobbing bombs )
Why would this be a bad thing? ;)

Iron Bolshevik

22nd November 2005, 15:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:11 AM
Mainly, DOP is an instrument by the proletariat directed against the bourgeoisie. Here is a quote from Lenin.

"And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which f o r t h e f i r s t time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the moneybags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that where there is suppression, where there is violence, there is no freedom and no democracy."

www.marx2mao.com (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html)
Yes, this quote from Chapt. 5 of The State and Revolution does an excellent job of summarizing the nature of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Lenin understood the threat and risk of subversion, and how it would later play a key role in determining the nature of the state; and how it should use resources that would be essential in crushing these forces.

We can get a better understanding as to the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat by also examining other things Lenin spoke of when regarding the actual administration of socialist society. Lenin made a couple speeches which could later be used as an outline for Soviet government and how it should be run. Here's Lenin's speech regarding the suppression of subversive (Bourgeois) press;

In the trying critical period of the revolution and the days that immediately followed it the Provisional Revolutionary Committee was compelled to take a number of measures against the counter-revolutionary press of different shades.

Immediately outcries were heard from all sides that the new, socialist power had violated a fundamental principle of its programme by encroaching upon the freedom of the press.

The Workers' and Peasants' Government call the attention of the population ot the fact that what this liberal facade actually conceals is freedom for the propertied classes, having taken hold of the lion's share of the entire press, to poison, unhindered, the minds and obscure the consciousness of the masses.

Every one knows that the bourgeois press is one of the most powerful weapons of the bourgeois. Especially at the crucial moment when the new power, the power of workers and peasants, is only affirming itself, it was impossible to leave this weapon wholly in the hands of the enemy, for in such moments it is no less dangerous than bombs and machine-guns. That is why temporary extraordinary measures were taken to stem the torrent of filth and slander in which the yellow and green press would be only too glad to drown the recent victory of the people.

As soon as the new order becomes consolidated, all administrative pressure on the press will be terminated and it will be granted complete freedom within the bounds of legal responsiblity, in keeping with a law that will be broadest and most progressive in this respect.

However, being aware that a restriction of the press, even at critical moments, is permissible only within the limites of what is absolutely necessary, the Council of People's Commissars resolves:

General Provisions on the Press:
1. Only those publications can be suppressed which (1) call for open resistance or insubordination to the Workers' and Peasants' Government; (2) sow sedition through demonstrably slanderous distortion of facts; (3) instigate actions of an obvious criminal, i.e. criminally punishable, nature.
2. Publications can be proscribed, temporarily or permanently, only by decision of the Council of People's Commissars.
3. The present ordinance is of a temporary nature and will be repealed by a special decree as soon as normal conditions of social life set in.

Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars,
VLADIMIR ULYANOV (LENIN)

And furthermore in a letter to the Council of People's Commissars, Lenin dictated the establishment of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for the Struggle with Counter-Revolution and Sabotage (Cheka):

The Commission is to be called the All-Russion Extraordinary Commission for the Struggle with Counter-Revolution and Sabotage and is to be attached to the Council of People's Commissars.

The duties of the Commission are to be as follows:
1. To investigate and nullify all acts of counter-revolution and sabotage throughout Russia, irrespective of origin.
2. To bring before the Revolutionary Tribunal all counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs and to work out measures to combat them.
3. The Commision is to conduct the preliminary investigation only, sufficient to suppress (the counter revolutionary act). The Commission is to be divided into sections: (1) the information (section) (2) the organization section (in charge of organizing the struggle with counter-revolution throughout Russia) with branches, and (3) the fighting section.

The Commission shall be set up finally tomorrow. Then the fighting section of the All-Russian Commission shall start its activities. The Commission shall keep an eye on the press, saboteurs, right Socialist Revolutionaries, and strikers. Measure to be taken are confiscation, imprisonment, confiscation of cards, publication of the names of the enemies of the people, etc.

Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars,
V. ULYANOV (LENIN)

With this evidence we can see that the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be focused on the abolition of wage-slavery, but also on class suppression of the remnants of the bourgeoisie/petite-bourgeoisie, and counter-revolutionary elements.

JKP

22nd November 2005, 16:16

There you have it folks, the proundly anti-Marxist nature of Leninism is displayed for all to see.

Red Powers

22nd November 2005, 19:55

From Wet BLanket

(as long as they're not lobbing bombs ) :D

Why would this be a bad thing? ;)

First of all I'm kidding. You know bomb-throwing anarchists have been a stereotype for well over a century. But it seems like the bomb lobbing might interfere with the work of the proletariat trying to rule society. Plus if you get bombed it's likely to fuck up your weekend.

FreePalestine-SmashIsrael

22nd November 2005, 20:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:32 PM
Socialism is not the the dictatorship of the proletariat:

To quote Engels:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"
have you even read the communist manifesto? it cleary states that socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat

red_che

23rd November 2005, 03:12

Adding up to my post, Dictatorship of the proletariat is the political expression of socialism. It is the proletarian state to be established in the entire period of socialist transition from capitalism to communism. Socialism is the early stage of Communism, it is the revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism, and as such, Socialist construction and revolution must be done. During the most part of socialism, the proletariat is still in struggle against the bourgeoisie (remnants and influences).

To quote Marx:

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Here, Lenin explains this quote:

"Marx bases this conclusion on an analysis of the role played by the proletariat in modern capitalist society, on the data concerning the development of this society, and on the irreconcilability of the antagonistic interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Previously the question was put in this way: in order to achieve its emancipation, the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, win political power and establish its revolutionary dictatorship.

Now the question is put somewhat differently: the transition from capitalist society -- which is developing towards Communism -- to a communist society is impossible without a "political transition period," and the state in this period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship to democracy?

We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy." On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to Communism.

In capitalist society, providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that "they cannot be bothered with democracy," "they cannot be bothered with politics"; in the ordinary peaceful course of events the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.

The correctness of this statement is perhaps most clearly confirmed by Germany, precisely because in that country constitutional legality steadily endured for a remarkably long time -- for nearly half a century (1871-1914) -- and during this period Social-Democracy there was able to achieve far more than in other countries in the way of "utilizing legality," and organized a larger proportion of the workers into a political party than anywhere else in the world.

What is this largest proportion of politically conscious and active wage slaves that has so far been observed in capitalist society? One million members of the Social-Democratic Party -- out of fifteen million wage-workers! Three million organized in trade unions -- out of fifteen million!

Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich -- that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we shall see everywhere, in the "petty" -- supposedly petty -- details of the suffrage (residential qualification, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for "beggars"!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc. -- we shall see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor, seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine-tenths, if not ninety-nine hundredths, of the bourgeois publicists and politicians are of this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.

Marx grasped this e s s e n c e of capitalist democracy splendidly, when, in analyzing the experience of the Commune, he said that the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament!

But from this capitalist democracy -- that is inevitably narrow, and stealthily pushes aside the poor, and is therefore hypocritical and false to the core -- forward development does not proceed simply, directly and smoothly towards "greater and greater democracy," as the liberal professors and petty-bourgeois opportunists would have us believe. No, forward development, i.e., towards Communism, proceeds through the dictatorship of the proletariat, and cannot do otherwise, for the resistance of the capitalist exploiters cannot be broken by anyone else or in any other way.

And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which f o r t h e f i r s t time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the moneybags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that where there is suppression, where there is violence, there is no freedom and no democracy."

Clearly, DOP is that state apparatus to be utilized by the proletriat in completing its smashing away of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois state machinery, class suppression and wage slavery and all sorts of class distinction and antagonism. DOP is the proletariat's instrument in reaching communism after winning political power. When all kinds of class exploitation, private ownership of the means of production and all class antagonisms are swept, only then can DOP wither away and communist society is established.

jambajuice

23rd November 2005, 03:15

Originally posted by FreePalestine-SmashIsrael+Nov 22 2005, 08:19 PM--> (FreePalestine-SmashIsrael @ Nov 22 2005, 08:19 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 07:32 PM
Socialism is not the the dictatorship of the proletariat:

To quote Engels:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"
have you even read the communist manifesto? it cleary states that socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat [/b]
Do you mean that the dictatorship never goes away under socialism? This is the general jist of what I'm reading here.

1) Socialism is a dictatorship
2) Communism has no dictatorship.

but, where did they go?

red_che

23rd November 2005, 03:50

Originally posted by jambajuice+Nov 23 2005, 03:20 AM--> (jambajuice @ Nov 23 2005, 03:20 AM)
Originally posted by FreePalestine-[email protected] 22 2005, 08:19 PM

[email protected] 20 2005, 07:32 PM
Socialism is not the the dictatorship of the proletariat:

To quote Engels:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"
have you even read the communist manifesto? it cleary states that socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat
Do you mean that the dictatorship never goes away under socialism? This is the general jist of what I'm reading here.

1) Socialism is a dictatorship
2) Communism has no dictatorship.

but, where did they go? [/b]
Social classes still exist in socialism. Thus, class antagonism is still prevalent. Only that in socialism, the proletariat are the rulers. they hold political power. Therefore, the proletriat needs to DOP to suppress the bourgeoisie left in the socialist society. The DOP's aim is to remove the class-based society and forward it to communism (classless society). When all class distinctions are removed and class antagonism has ended, no need for the DOP to remain, it will wither away.

JKP

23rd November 2005, 05:15

Read this again; maybe even read it twice:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

-Engels

red_che

23rd November 2005, 06:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:20 AM
Read this again; maybe even read it twice:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

-Engels
What was Paris Commune? It is Socialism (socialist construction and revolution), isn't it? Dictatorship of the proletariat was established, am I right? So, what's your point?

jambajuice

23rd November 2005, 09:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:20 AM
Read this again; maybe even read it twice:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

-Engels
Okay. Are you trying to say a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is not a government that is unelected or tyranical?

JKP

23rd November 2005, 16:44

Originally posted by jambajuice+Nov 23 2005, 01:08 AM--> (jambajuice @ Nov 23 2005, 01:08 AM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 05:20 AM
Read this again; maybe even read it twice:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

-Engels
Okay. Are you trying to say a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is not a government that is unelected or tyranical?[/b]
Maybe I am :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

red_che

24th November 2005, 03:53

Originally posted by JKP+Nov 23 2005, 04:49 PM--> (JKP @ Nov 23 2005, 04:49 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:08 AM

[email protected] 23 2005, 05:20 AM
Read this again; maybe even read it twice:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

-Engels
Okay. Are you trying to say a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is not a government that is unelected or tyranical?
Maybe I am :rolleyes: :rolleyes: [/b]
Nonsense talking with you.

JKP

24th November 2005, 05:03

Originally posted by red_che+Nov 23 2005, 07:58 PM--> (red_che @ Nov 23 2005, 07:58 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:08 AM

[email protected] 23 2005, 05:20 AM
Read this again; maybe even read it twice:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

-Engels
Okay. Are you trying to say a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is not a government that is unelected or tyranical?
Maybe I am :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Nonsense talking with you. [/b]
Do you not understand rhetoric?

kurt

24th November 2005, 05:19

The word dictatorship of the proletariat is so often confused. The same goes with the term socialism.

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

-Engels

The paris commune was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat is completely different from the leninist idea, which is a dictatorship of the part over the proletariat.

So the question you need to be asking yourself is, which do you want.

wet blanket

24th November 2005, 07:03

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 22 2005, 08:00 PM
From Wet BLanket

(as long as they're not lobbing bombs ) :D

Why would this be a bad thing? ;)

First of all I'm kidding. You know bomb-throwing anarchists have been a stereotype for well over a century. But it seems like the bomb lobbing might interfere with the work of the proletariat trying to rule society. Plus if you get bombed it's likely to fuck up your weekend.
Yeah there's no place for violence in a revolution.

pcb

24th November 2005, 10:06

how is it that anarchists always want to throw bombs where does it get you and more to the point bombs kill and main anyone caught up in your selfish act of violence. DOP will be needed for decades to ensure that the new generations are able to throw of the historical baggage of 300 years of capitalism. The forces that will be amassed against the revolution will be great the ruling class will try every trick in the book to ensure that they are left in control at the end. Who would win a war, they would due to the fact that they have all the weapons. So to move the revolution forward would it not be a good idea to educate the working class about the class struggle. for the last 50 years capitalism has reached into the very heart of the working class and using nationalism and racism being able to change the spirit of the working class. Education of the working class (remember this is from a 1st world perspective) is the most important work revolutionaries should be doing. If we think that the working class will rise up and take control think again. Most are indifferent and would rather watch football than have a discussion about politics. This was not the case in the 30s,40s and 50s. As a whole the working class lost its way in the post war boom and as such it needs through revolutionaries to be educated, not told about some abstract comment made by Lenin or anyone else for that matter. Don,t get me wrong its taken me bloody ages to understand what Lenin was on about. I just dont think most working class people would try. So we must EDUCATE them.

Hiero

24th November 2005, 10:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:32 AM
Socialism is not the the dictatorship of the proletariat:

To quote Engels:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"
You can't give one vague quote out of context and conclude something that we very well know is not true and know Engels believed Socialism to be the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You think we are idiots?

jambajuice

24th November 2005, 14:55

wet blanket

25th November 2005, 00:39

how is it that anarchists always want to throw bombs where does it get you
It is an assault on capitalism and its militaristic foundation. You can't 'wish away' capitalism, you need to uproot it by force.

and more to the point bombs kill and main anyone caught up in your selfish act of violence.
Bombs are not thrown around 'willy-nilly'. Most people killed by anarchist violence are cops, military servicemen, and bourgeoisie.

DOP will be needed for decades to ensure that the new generations are able to throw of the historical baggage of 300 years of capitalism.
Individuals are perfectly capable of doing this themselves through mass direct action of individuals collectively acting in self-interest. "class dictatorship" is not necessary and I find it personally unacceptable.

So we must EDUCATE them.
"We" must educate "them"? You don't really get it, do you?

Rawthentic

25th November 2005, 02:19

You guys make this so confusing. I thought that social classes did not exist in communism. And is it possible to get a stateless society, because so far all rulers have been corrupted by their power. ( Castro, Mao, Stalin.) Can men be uncorrupt and allow communism in its pure form?

red_che

25th November 2005, 06:39

Originally posted by JKP+Nov 24 2005, 05:08 AM--> (JKP @ Nov 24 2005, 05:08 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:08 AM

[email protected] 23 2005, 05:20 AM
Read this again; maybe even read it twice:

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once again been filled with wholesale terror at the words 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Well, good gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship will look like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

-Engels
Okay. Are you trying to say a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is not a government that is unelected or tyranical?
Maybe I am :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Nonsense talking with you.
Do you not understand rhetoric? [/b]
Why not just tell us your point?

You guys make this so confusing. I thought that social classes did not exist in communism.

Yeah, that's true. Socialism is just the first phase of communism. Sociall classes cannot be erased in one second at one stroke. That's why there is this revolutionary transition, Socialism and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, to remove all of this.

The paris commune was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat is completely different from the leninist idea, which is a dictatorship of the part over the proletariat.

You are confused.

kurt

25th November 2005, 06:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 06:44 AM
You are confused.
perhaps you should "enlighten" me. Was the leninist state a dictatorship of the proletariat, or did it not achieve it?

red_che

26th November 2005, 07:42

Originally posted by comradekurt+Nov 25 2005, 06:52 AM--> (comradekurt @ Nov 25 2005, 06:52 AM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 06:44 AM
You are confused.
perhaps you should "enlighten" me. Was the leninist state a dictatorship of the proletariat, or did it not achieve it? [/b]
Perhaps you should try to read these:

Can The Bolshevik Retain State Power? (http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/RSP17.html)

The State and Revolution (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html)

In Chapter II of the Communist Manifesto it says:

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

Maybe even read more of Lenin, Stalin and Mao to understand DOP.

I just want to add this passage, also in the Communist Manifesto:

"This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves."

Well, maybe this passage would answer those who continues to question the establishment of a communist party like the Bolshevik party.

kurt

26th November 2005, 08:13

Perhaps you should try to read these:

Can The Bolshevik Retain State Power? (http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/RSP17.html)

The State and Revolution (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html)

Well, we all know the take Lenin had on the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In Chapter II of the Communist Manifesto it says:

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

Although this quote has little to do with the dictatorship of the proletariat, I think I know where you were attempting to go with it. "they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." Yes, communists do have a clear understanding of capitalism, and that it must be overthrown, but Marx did issue a "blank cheque" for leninists to rule over the proletariat.

Maybe even read more of Lenin, Stalin and Mao to understand DOP.
I'd hardly consider Stalin or Lenin to be a credible source on the dictatorship of the proletariat. Russia never experienced one, and they fought hard to maintain their power over the working class.

As far as Mao goes, the only time he ever witnessed a DOP was in Shanghai. And we know how that went.

"This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves."
Stupid workers, I guess you're right, Lenin to establish a despotism over them. After all, they don't even know what's "good" for themselves.

I also wouldn't mind an answer to my question, was the USSR ever a dictatorship of the proletariat?

red_che

27th November 2005, 08:40

I also wouldn't mind an answer to my question, was the USSR ever a dictatorship of the proletariat?

Yes it was, during Lenin's and Stalin's time. That is why I recommended that you read their works for it is they who experienced building DOP. And also Mao, of course, he experienced this when he and the chinese proletariat built DOP in China.

And of course, the Paris Commune is one best source, however, it was only short-lived.

But if you wouldn't want to read more on them, for me, I couldn't recommend more for no one besides the ones I stated above had ever experienced DOP.

kurt

27th November 2005, 09:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:45 AM
Yes it was, during Lenin's and Stalin's time. That is why I recommended that you read their works for it is they who experienced building DOP. And also Mao, of course, he experienced this when he and the chinese proletariat built DOP in China.

And of course, the Paris Commune is one best source, however, it was only short-lived.

But if you wouldn't want to read more on them, for me, I couldn't recommend more for no one besides the ones I stated above had ever experienced DOP.
Yea, just like I thought. Can't you see the difference between the USSR and China when compared to the Paris Commune and Shanghai? There is a stark difference.

wet blanket

27th November 2005, 22:36

:lol:

Marx did issue a "blank cheque" for leninists to rule over the proletariat.
Very well said.

jambajuice

28th November 2005, 07:21

You guys are confusing the heck out of me. First I vist a thread in opposing ideas. Someone says China and Russia is communist. Then someone says it isn't. Then now there is supposed to be a dictatorship over the protelariat. That is also not communist. What gives?

Ouroboros

28th November 2005, 20:19

I do not support neither dictatorship nor special role of the contemporary proletariat in communism. I think that idea of the communism should be gradually accepted by all classes - including capitalists - and as result the society will gradually converge toward communism. Of course, working class will accept communist ideas easier than capitalists, but not really that much easier.

wet blanket

29th November 2005, 09:31

First I vist a thread in opposing ideas.
Opposing Ideas is a really stupid place to look if you're trying to get an understanding of Marxist theory.

Someone says China and Russia is communist.
They were communist in name alone, you won't find anyone with the slightest understanding of Marx saying that the modern Chinese and former Soviet Union states are anything resembling communism.

Then someone says it isn't.
They're correct.

Then now there is supposed to be a dictatorship over the protelariat. That is also not communist. What gives?
There isn't 'supposed to be', however there are several implications in Marx and Engel's writing, including the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat", which allow for a variety of interpretations ranging from despotic to libertarian, the latter exemplified in bolshevik practice. Despite the dissimilarities in interpretations, all Marxists seem to share the same trait of being intellectually crippled by ideology and uncritically accepting of a narrow deterministic view of history(and their predictions of an inevitable glorious future society).

red_che

29th November 2005, 11:25

There isn't 'supposed to be', however there are several implications in Marx and Engel's writing, including the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat", which allow for a variety of interpretations ranging from despotic to libertarian, the latter exemplified in bolshevik practice. Despite the dissimilarities in interpretations, all Marxists seem to share the same trait of being intellectually crippled by ideology and uncritically accepting of a narrow deterministic view of history(and their predictions of an inevitable glorious future society).

You are confusing the issue further.

Here, Marx says:

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Which clearly means that Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat is that revolutionary transition to communism. Got that?

bombeverything

29th November 2005, 11:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 11:36 AM
You are confusing the issue further.

Here, Marx says:

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Which clearly means that Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat is that revolutionary transition to communism. Got that?

There is no need to be rude. Wet Blanket was simply pointing out that there are a number of different interpretations around what this "dictatorship of the proletariat" (or "socialist transition phase") would actually be like, i.e. what form it would take. For instance would decisions be made through decentralised workers councils or by a centralised state power? Clearly Wet Blanket is wary of the concept, as are many others including myself. How is this confusing?

jambajuice

30th November 2005, 01:24

None of you guys are helping.

metalero

30th November 2005, 02:10

Originally posted by JKP+Nov 20 2005, 05:13 PM--> (JKP @ Nov 20 2005, 05:13 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 20 2005, 01:24 PM
I see. So once again we have this leadership phobia of the left anticommunists. What has it got to do with leninism? Although I don't know much about the subject, the USSR supported Spain in the civil war. How did the 1936 revolution "work" if it was crushed within a short period? It was the 1917 revolution in Russia that "worked"
If the goal is the emancipation of the working class, then the Spanish civil war worked because that's what it strived for and indeed briefly achived. As it stands, the Spanish civil war was as close to communism as we ever got.

Conversely, the Bolsheviks did not attempt to emancipate the workers, demonstrated by suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion, and dismantling of the worker councils. Once the vanguard came to power, all the power was in the hands of the party. The proletariat was subordinated to new master. [/b]
If you make research beyond your anarchist sources full of anti-leninism, you will realize that the role of anarchist were not revolutionary after all. " The Spanish Anarchists defended and continue to defend bourgeois counterrevolution from the proletariat revolution. No sophistry will delete from the annals of history the fact that anarchism and Stalinism in the Spanish revolution were on one side of the barricades while the working masses with the revolutionary Marxists were on the other. Such is the truth which will forever remain in the consciousness of the proletariat".

Role of the Anarchists (From Lessons from Spain: The Last Warning by leon Trotsky)

The Anarchists had no independent position of any kind in the Spanish revolution. All they did was waver between Bolshevism and Menshevism. More precisely, the Anarchist workers instinctively yearned to enter the Bolshevik road (July 19, 1936, and May days of 1937) while their leaders, on the contrary, with all their might drove the masses into the camp of the Popular Front, i.e., of the bourgeois regime
The Anarchists revealed a fatal lack of understanding of the laws of the revolution and its tasks by seeking to limit themselves to their own trade unions, that is, to organizations permeated with the routine of peaceful times, and by ignoring what went on outside the framework of the trade unions, among the masses, among the political parties, and in the government apparatus. Had the Anarchists been revolutionists, they would first of all have called for the creation of soviets, which unite the representatives of all the toilers of city and country, including the most oppressed strata, who never joined the trade unions. The revolutionary workers would have naturally occupied the dominant position in these soviets. The Stalinists would have remained an insignificant minority. The proletariat would have convinced itself of its own invincible strength. The apparatus of the bourgeois state would have hung suspended in the air. One strong blow would have sufficed to pulverize this apparatus. The socialist revolution would have received a powerful impetus. The French proletariat would not for long permitted Leon Blum to blockade the proletariat revolution beyond the Pyrenees. Neither could the Moscow bureaucracy have permitted itself such a luxury. The most difficult questions would have been solved as they arose.

Instead of this, the anarcho-syndicalists, seeking to hide from “politics” in the trade unions, turned out to be, to the great surprise of the whole world and themselves, a fifth wheel in the cart of bourgeois democracy. But not for long; a fifth wheel is superfluous. After Garcia Oliver and his cohorts helped Stalin and his henchmen to take power away from the workers, the anarchists themselves were driven out of the government of the Popular Front. Even then they found nothing better to do than jump on the victor’s bandwagon and assure him of their devotion. The fear of the petty bourgeois before the big bourgeois, of the petty bureaucrat before the big bureaucrat, they covered up with lachrymose speeches about the sanctity of the united front (between a victim and the executioners) and about the inadmissibility of every kind of dictatorship, including their own. “After all, we could have taken power in July 1936..." “After all, we could have taken power in May 1937...” The Anarchists begged Stalin-Negrin to recognize and reward their treachery to the revolution. A revolting picture!

In and of itself, this self-justification that “we did not seize power not because we were unable but because we did not wish to, because we were against every kind of dictatorship,” and the like, contains an irrevocable condemnation of anarchism as an utterly anti-revolutionary doctrine. To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power with those who wield it, the exploiters. The essence of every revolution consisted and consists in putting a new class in power, thus enabling it to realize its own program in life. It is impossible to wage war and to reject victory. It is impossible to lead the masses towards insurrection without preparing for the conquest power.

No one could have prevented the Anarchists after the conquest of power from establishing the sort of regime they deem necessary, assuming, of course, that their program is realizable. But the Anarchist leaders themselves lost faith in it. They hid from power not because they are against “every kind of dictatorship"—in actuality, grumbling and whining, they supported and still support the dictatorship of Stalin-Negrin—but because they completely lost their principles and courage, if they ever had any. They were afraid of everything: “isolation,” “involvement,” “fascism." They were afraid of France and England. More than anything these phrasemongers feared the revolutionary masses.

The renunciation of the conquest of power inevitably throws every workers’ organization into the swamp of reformism and turns it into a toy of the bourgeoisie; it cannot be otherwise in view of the class structure of society. In opposing the goal, the conquest of power, the Anarchists could not in the end fail to oppose the means, the revolution. The leaders of the CNT and FAI not only helped the bourgeoisie hold on to the shadow of power in July 1936; they also helped it to reestablish bit by bit what it had lost at one stroke. In May 1937, they sabotaged the uprising of the workers and thereby saved the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Thus anarchism, which wished merely to be anti-political, proved in reality to be anti-revolutionary and in the more critical moments- counterrevolutionary.

The Anarchist theoreticians, who after the great test of 1931-37 continue to repeat the old reactionary nonsense about Kronstadt, and who affirm that “Stalinism is the inevitable result of Marxism and Bolshevism," simply demonstrate by this they are forever dead for the revolution.

You say that Marxism is in itself depraved and Stalinism is its legitimate progeny? But why are we revolutionary Marxists engaged in mortal combat with Stalinism throughout the world? Why does the Stalinist gang see in Trotskyism it chief enemy? Why does every approach to our views or our methods of action (Durruti, Andres, Nin, Landau, and others) compel the Stalinist gangsters to resort to bloody reprisals. Why, on the other hand, did the leaders of Spanish anarchism serve, during the time of the Moscow and Madrid crimes of the GPU, as ministers under Caballero-Negrin, that is as servants of the bourgeoisie and Stalin? Why even now, under the pretext of fighting fascism, do the Anarchists remain voluntary captives of Stalin-Negrin, the executioners of the revolution, who have demonstrated their incapacity to fight fascism?

By hiding behind Kronstadt and Makhno, the attorneys of anarchism will deceive nobody. In the Kronstadt episode and the struggle with Makhno, we defended the proletarian from the peasant counterrevolution. The Spanish Anarchists defended and continue to defend bourgeois counterrevolution from the proletariat revolution. No sophistry will delete from the annals of history the fact that anarchism and Stalinism in the Spanish revolution were on one side of the barricades while the working masses with the revolutionary Marxists were on the other. Such is the truth which will forever remain in the consciousness of the proletariat!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...938-spain01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-spain01.htm)

wet blanket

30th November 2005, 02:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:35 AM
None of you guys are helping.
:rolleyes: Maybe you should read a book then.

Floyce White

30th November 2005, 05:22

Hopes_Guevara, I oppose the theories of "lower stage of communism" and of the subsequent formulation "dictatorship of the proletariat." There is already a term for the "transitional period" between capitalism and communism. That term is "revolution."

You may want to read my series of articles in which I discuss various aspects of this. These articles date back to 911, and are ignored by dogmatists who just go on repeating "dictatorship of the proletariat" as if the theory hasn't been thoroughly defeated.

http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty

redstar2000

30th November 2005, 14:44

It looks to me like any young and aspiring revolutionary reading this thread would end up even more confused than when they started.

We see here a series of competing visions of what forms a post-capitalist society might assume in the immediate post-revolutionary period.

Boiling away all the rhetoric, it seems to me that there are "two camps" in this controversy.

1. The working class "needs" an elite (or vanguard) to "rule them" for "their own good"...until such time as they become "capable" of self-government.

2. The working class is "fit" to "rule itself" from the very beginning and must do that.

The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been appropriated by all the various Leninists to describe the first option.

But, in my view, Marx and Engels supported the second option...and that's what they really meant by that phrase.

But even here, keep in mind that we are not "obligated" to take anyone's word for this stuff.

The shape of post-capitalist society will be determined by those who actually participate in the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

If they want a new society actually run by the working class, then that's what they'll try to establish.

If they want a society that's like what we have now -- only the vanguard party replaces the capitalist class -- then they'll try to establish that.

If the working class as a whole wants to "run things", then they'll do it!

If all they want is a more "benevolent" despotism, then they'll elevate someone (and his party) to that position and sink back into passive servility.

So what it really boils down to is what do you want?

What kind of society would you like to see replace the existing despotism of capital?

What is "worth" devoting your time and energy to struggle for...maybe for your whole life?

The Leninists of all varieties successfully convinced an entire century's worth of young revolutionaries that "communism is impossible" and "therefore" they must "be satisfied" with a "well-meaning" party despotism.

Well, are you "satisfied" with that?

Or will you be "down for the real thing"?

You have plenty of time to consider the matter; proletarian revolution is still many decades in the future...obviously!

What your decision does affect is what you tell other people right now.

If you tell them that communism is possible, then you contribute to the spread of communist ideas throughout the population (even if your contribution is "too small to measure").

If you tell them that "the party must rule", then you delay the spread of communist ideas...even if that delay is also "too small to measure".

What each of us chooses is, historically speaking, "too small to measure". But what actually happens in history is a product of hundreds of millions of such individual choices.

So think it over as carefully as you can.

The future depends on it. :)

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

YKTMX

30th November 2005, 16:01

I suppose I'm supposed to fit into the first of Red's two 'camps', except that the description he gives is only recognisable to himself and a few remote anarchists.

The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been appropriated by all the various Leninists to describe the first option.

False. You have appropriated the 'first option' for other people, regardless of what they think on the matter. No 'Leninist' would hold a position even remotely similar to what Red outlined. The revolutionary party is not an 'elite', to call it so means you either don't understand the dynamic between party and class or you don't know what the word means. Pick one.

But, in my view, Marx and Engels supported the second option...and that's what they really meant by that phrase.

Why did they spend their whole political lives getting involved in parties with identifiable political structures, then? For kicks?

Just because you want this to be the case doesn't mean it is.

redstar2000

1st December 2005, 04:50

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The revolutionary party is not an 'elite', to call it so means you either don't understand the dynamic between party and class or you don't know what the word means.

Does the phrase "the leading role of the party" ring a bell?

Leninism (all versions) insists on that! It's their core value.

From Lenin himself...

But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class.

The Trade Unions, The Present Situation and Trotsky's Mistakes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm) 12/30/1920

The word "elite" may offend you...but I think most readers will find it eminently suitable.

Why did they [Marx and Engels] spend their whole political lives getting involved in parties with identifiable political structures, then? For kicks?

History is not, I take it, one of your strengths.

Marx and Engels were "involved" with German Social Democracy only in the sense of writing articles for the social democratic press and offering "advice" to some of the actual leaders of that party. They were never "party bureaucrats" themselves.

The First International was not "a vanguard party" in any sense of the word. It was a federation of small political groups and some very young proto-unions...and it wasn't even "Marxist" -- though Marx himself wrote many important works on its behalf.

The "Communist League" may or may not have had a "real existence"...was it entirely a "paper organization" or did it actually function like a working political group, at least in a few places? The evidence is, I think, "mixed" and highly uncertain.

A Russian Leninist back in the 1920s suggested that the "Communist League" was Marx's "early version" of a Leninist vanguard party.

If so, it is distinctly odd that neither Marx nor Engels ever publicly recommended this "form of organization" to the proletariat. They had many opportunities to "speak out" about this...in the controversies with Bakunin, for example.

But they remained silent.

Marx and Engels are on record as dismissing the efforts of "small groups" who imagine that they "can do for the proletariat" what the proletariat must do for itself.

I suppose I'm supposed to fit into the first of Red's two 'camps'...

Yes. As a self-identified Leninist-Trotskyist, you must be assumed to believe that the Party must rule.

There's no "getting out of that" except verbally...that is, a lot of "dialectical" rhetoric purporting to "explain" why party despotism is "really" proletarian rule. :lol:

Just as Hegel "dialectically proved" that the "highest form of democracy" was the Prussian despotism.

As time passes, I think you'll discover that your "market share" is shrinking. You're still selling kerosene lamps in the age of electricity. :)

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

Floyce White

1st December 2005, 05:57

redstar2000, I generally agree with your approach, but I'd say it a different way. Parties don't rule--propertied classes rule. Parties and states (and businesses, banks, rent housing, etc.) are the organs of propertied-class rule in the same sense that business executives manage for the owners. That's why "Leninists" are right to disagree with your wording. And that's why "Leninists" are wrong to say that a "workers' state" or "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not rule by a faction of the capitalist class. I've already written in my articles about why there is no such thing as property interests of the dispossessed, and I've already challenged everyone who thinks otherwise to beat my argument. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is a beaten theory. And if an ordinary worker like me can beat it, anybody can.

JKP, I completely agree that the Paris Commune is the form and substance of direct mass action that is the proletarian revolution. However, I think Engels was wrong to degrade it with the label "dictatorship of the proletariat." I love the post on this thread signed by Lenin as the president of the Commissars--the organization that co-opted and suppressed the soviets.

UltraLeftGerry

1st December 2005, 07:32

On the issue of the term dictatorhip of the proletariat I believe in this, which I don't think will be that nasuseating to anarchists. Obviously the workers and lower classes will smash the bourgeois state and current societal relations. The bourgeoisie will not be given in a role in creating society, they will have an interest to retain class divisions. Even for an anarchist who expects to smash capitalism, obviously force will be used to strip the bourgeoisie of their power and to keep them from it. The revolution is not complete when the army disbands and bourgeois parliament shuts down. There will be a fundamental transformation of relations in society that will not happen as soon as the red or black flag is flying over the capital. These transformations will not require a Leninist state and they will be carried out democratically (workers councils) but some anarchists in their utter rejection of Marx think that all relations will instantly be transformed. I don't think it will take a long time. Perhaps only a few years, keep in mind this will be democratically carried out and and the "state" will simply consist of councils that are democratically deciding how best to abolish themselves. It' really not even a state but may technically be one according to the Marxist definition of the state (ie in order to supress once class and give supremacy to another class). There will be no leaders, no party and no fascistic police or military.
Allow me to quote Red Rosa herself:

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But 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. -Chapter VIII The Russian Revolution

So long as the bourgeoisie must be toppled then some sort of psedo-state controlled by an entire class to strip them of their privileges. This must be done democratically as I believe that along with anarchists that power corrupts. Though really once their wealth is expropriated by the proletariat, the bourgeoisie are barely threat. Their ideas will fade away as long as the proletariat remakes society.

red_che

1st December 2005, 09:57

It looks to me like any young and aspiring revolutionary reading this thread would end up even more confused than when they started.

In fact, you made it even more confusing. :angry:

Here I will again post the exact words Marx used to describe to you what this dictatorship of the proletariat really is.

"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the ad vantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

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

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of Communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
(Communist Manifesto, Chapter II)

Also, Marx said this:

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Here, clearly, Marx told of a revolutionary transition that is, DOP and socialist construction.

So stop creating your own divisive and obscure ideas/interpretations of DOP.

You know, Marx, about two centuries ago, have said something which is exactly what you are doing today. Here it is:

"This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves."

You're one of those who continually upsets the organisation of the proletariat into a class and a party by your consistent denial of the necessity of an organisation or a party that would advance the proletarian revolution.

Marx and Engels were "involved" with German Social Democracy only in the sense of writing articles for the social democratic press and offering "advice" to some of the actual leaders of that party. They were never "party bureaucrats" themselves.

The First International was not "a vanguard party" in any sense of the word. It was a federation of small political groups and some very young proto-unions...and it wasn't even "Marxist" -- though Marx himself wrote many important works on its behalf.

The "Communist League" may or may not have had a "real existence"...was it entirely a "paper organization" or did it actually function like a working political group, at least in a few places? The evidence is, I think, "mixed" and highly uncertain.

Here are Engels' words in the "On the History of the Communist League."

Stop guessing. :)

We entertained no doubt that an organization within the German working class was necessary, if only for propaganda purposes, and that this organization, in so far as it would not be merely local in character, could only be a secret one, even outside Germany. Now, there already existed exactly such an organization in the shape of the League. What we previously objected to in this League was now relinquished as erroneous by the representatives of the League themselves; we were even invited to co-operate in the work of reorganization. Could we say no? Certainly not. Therefore, we entered the League; Marx founded a League community in Brussels from among our close friends, while I attended the three Paris communities.

In the summer of 1847, the first League Congress took place in London, at which W. Wolff represented the Brussels and I the Paris communities. At this congress the reorganization of the League was carried through first of all. Whatever remained of the old mystical names dating back to the conspiratorial period was now abolished; the League now consisted of communities, circles, leading circles, a Central Committee and a Congress, and henceforth called itself the "Communist League." "The aim of the League is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the rule of the proletariat, the abolition of the old, bourgeois society based on class antagonisms and the foundation of a new society without classes and without private property" -- thus ran the first article. The organization itself was thoroughly democratic, with elective and always removable boards. This alone barred all hankering after conspiracy, which requires dictatorship, and the League was converted -- for ordinary peace times at least -- into a pure propaganda society. These new Rules were submitted to the communities for discussion -- so democratic was the procedure now followed -- then once again debated at the Second Congress and finally adopted by the latter on December 8, 1847.

I'd Rather Be Drinking

1st December 2005, 09:59

There is a problem with a board like this where people disagree so much on the very basis of revolution. But let's just get a few things strait.

First on Russia and Spain:

You can quote Marx and Lenin till you're blue in the face... that doesn't change the fact that the Bolsheviks were enthusiastic reactionaries. The DoP in Russia was a dictatorship of the party over the proles. Makhno wasn't just a peasant guerilla, he had support in cities as well. And it's even more ridiculous to argue this for Kronstadt. More on that later... On to Spain. I'm a communist, not an anarchist, but I realize that the revolution in Spain did at least as well as the Russian revolution. But let's not romanticize it. Anarchist leaders joined the government, and worked with bourgeois nationalists. This is because of their short-sighted devotion to anti-fascism. They abandoned most of the social transformations in favor of increasing production and alliance with all sorts of capitalists (including Stalinists). This undermined the revolution at least as much as the fascist reaction. Both the Russian and Spain revolutions were short-lived, and ended with capitalism re-asserting itself completely. Spain living about a year. The Russian revolution maybe four.

Second on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Socialism;

Marx was not the only communist, and you don't have to take everything he said word for word to be a communist. The second international (Kautsky) really set up this idea that the proletariat and socialism are two different things that need to be united. Proles are stupid workers, and socialism is a scientific enlightened idea that is easiest grasped by intellectuals. This is the basis for the party and union building of the second international and social-democracy. (Lenin is just a social democrat in a backward country). This is what lead them to become a capitalist ruling class. Communism is not a political form to manage society--neither democratic nor dictatorial. The proles will take advantage of a majority or a minority whenever possible. Even the most radically democratic worker's controlled capitalism will either be destroyed, or slowly turn itself into control by managers. Communism is the movement that destroys capitalist society from top to bottom--and creates the conditions for a society not based on alienated labor.

I'll end with a few nice quotes.

“The Workers and Peasants Government has decreed that Kronstadt and the rebelling ships must immediately submit to the authority of the Soviet Republic. I therefore order all who have revolted against the socialist fatherland to lay down their arms at once. Recalcitrants should be disarmed and turned over to the Soviet authorities. The commissars and other members of the government who have been arrested must be liberated at once. Only those who surrender unconditionally can expect mercy from the Soviet Republic. I am simultaneously giving orders to prepare for the suppression of the rebellion and the subjugation of the sailors by armed force. All responsibility for the harm that may be suffered by the peaceful population will rest entirely on the heads of the White Guard mutineers. This warning is final.”

—Trotsky, Kamenev, Ultimatum to Kronstadt

“We have only one answer to all that: All power to the soviets! Take your hands off them — your hands that are red with the blood of the martyrs of freedom who fought the White Guards, the landowners and the bourgeoisie!”

—Kronstadt Izvestia #6

and finally Rene Reisel talking about the battles between workers and the Stalinist cops in Barcelona May 1937:

"The fact that arms were brought out so quickly in response to the Stalinist provocation says a lot for the Catalonian masses’ immense capacities for autonomy; but the fact that the order to surrender issued by the anarchist ministers was so quickly obeyed demonstrates how much autonomy for victory they still lacked. Tomorrow again it will be the workers’ degree of autonomy that will decide our fate."

redstar2000

1st December 2005, 20:53

Originally posted by Engels
The organization itself was thoroughly democratic, with elective and always removable boards. This alone barred all hankering after conspiracy, which requires dictatorship, and the League was converted -- for ordinary peace times at least -- into a pure propaganda society.

Did you actually read what you posted or did you just "copy & paste"?

Where's the vanguard party in this?

A "pure propaganda society"? Without "experienced leadership" and "disciplined membership"?

My goodness! :)

You're one of those who continually upsets the organisation of the proletariat into a class and a party by your consistent denial of the necessity of an organisation or a party that would advance the proletarian revolution.

Wrong again. :lol:

A New Type of Communist Organization (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205534&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

There is one sense in which I am guilty of what you charge me with.

I do try as hard as I can to "divide the working class" from you.

Not in a personal sense, of course. I mean by that a total rejection of the entire Leninist paradigm.

To put it crudely, you "had your chance" in the last century to "show what you could do".

No one who was not completely wacko would want to re-create the dreary despotisms of that era.

Much less actually "live" in one.

Not even you would choose such a fate.

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

red_che

2nd December 2005, 03:37

To put it crudely, you "had your chance" in the last century to "show what you could do".

We Leninists had already proven something. While you haven't proven anything.

A "pure propaganda society"? Without "experienced leadership" and "disciplined membership"?

You didn't understand it, really. The League was a pure propaganda society in "peace time". Can you understand what this means? Did you see that phrase? Did you read the entire text that I posted? Or did you just select a phrase out of it to use against the entire context of it?

The League, of course isn't yet the vanguard party as Marx and Engels were then trying to establish one. But what I was trying to point out here is that Marx knew that an organization and political party of the proletariat is needed.

I put those comments for you to read that even Marx and Engels saw the necessity of an organization of the Communists.

I do try as hard as I can to "divide the working class" from you.

You are really trying hard to avoid the proletariat from establishing socialism. But this I assure you, no one can stop the proletariat from winning the battle against capitalism. Not even those like you. Nothing personal, really, I just base my criticisms of you from your works/ideas.

Floyce White

2nd December 2005, 04:17

red_che, quoting The Communist Manifesto: "The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."

Nonsense! Feudalism constantly suppressed capitalism and capitalist property forms. Feudal property was not bourgeois property; neither was it communism. Any person, place, idea, or thing can be treated as property, because property is the relation of violence between people regarding things, ideas, places, and other people. Capitalism is all about commodification of all properties, so as capitalism develops, any relation between people over a thing is ever-more likely to be bourgeois property in the bourgeois common market. And that is especially true of "common" bourgeois property owned for the rich by the state.

Marx wrote a lot of really stupid ideas, and he himself said in later life that he wanted to change a lot in the Manifesto, but that it had become a historical document. And we all know how strict Marx was about correctly citing.

Just because someone writes some sound arguments does not mean that every word he writes is logical. And Marx, as a person of bourgeois family origins, used the bourgeois method of verbosity to drown out the words of others. He might not have known better, but you should.

To repeat, Marx wrote a lot of nonsense. Don't be a dogmatist and repeat it. Stop quoting others and write what YOU think.

I'd Rather Be Drinking: "Marx was not the only communist."

Marx was not a communist.

1. "Communism" is the condition of being working-class people in struggle to end their existence as workers. Marx was not of working-class family origin; therefore, he could not possibly be a communist. Marx was a socialist.

2. Marx opposed communism. His advocacy as a here-and-now solution of a "lower stage of communism" that had every form and substance of capitalism--in logical terms, this is opposition to "higher stage of communism" by continual postponement, delay, and diversion and substitution of struggle towards not-"higher-stage-of-communism" goals.

redstar2000

2nd December 2005, 05:40

Originally posted by Floyce White responding to red_che
Stop quoting others and write what YOU think.

Some of the Leninists here are capable of thinking through the implications of their ideology and actually applying it to real world controversies.

But others -- and unfortunately red_che is one of them -- can only repeat the formulas they've learned...and "copy & paste" really is the "best they can do".

As you probably know, in Leninist practice theory is a matter that "the leaders take care of"; the ordinary Leninist foot-soldier is supposed to be content with formulas and slogans.

So when we try to actually discuss matters of controversy with them, it often has all the fascination of dropping a coin in a vending machine and receiving a predictable commodity as a result.

What I've noticed about Leninism in decay is that they've largely run out of ideas.

Particularly ideas about the future.

Some of them are still occasionally capable of a sharp critical analysis of some contemporary capitalist outrage.

But when it comes to a "vision of the future", all they can promise is a "kinder and gentler" despotism derived from Russian and Chinese sources.

And they find it "astonishing" that almost no one wants that!

My prediction is that all the remaining Leninist parties in the "west" will dwindle into tiny cults and then just disappear...possibly as soon as 2020 or so. :)

What will "replace" it will be an entirely new revolutionary movement that will be explicitly proletarian...with a theory derived from the most fruitful contributions of both Marx and the "anarchist tradition".

I think this is something in its earliest formative stages at this point.

But we'll see. :)

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

red_che

2nd December 2005, 05:56

Some of the Leninists here are capable of thinking through the implications of their ideology and actually applying it to real world controversies.

But others -- and unfortunately red_che is one of them -- can only repeat the formulas they've learned...and "copy & paste" really is the "best they can do".

Hahaha.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

..........?

As you probably know, in Leninist practice theory is a matter that "the leaders take care of"; the ordinary Leninist foot-soldier is supposed to be content with formulas and slogans.

Coming from a non-Leninist who doesn't know a thing about Leninism, the theory and practice.

My prediction is that all the remaining Leninist parties in the "west" will dwindle into tiny cults and then just disappear...possibly as soon as 2020 or so.

I thought you were a materialist? Now, you become a fortune-teller. Quite a leap..

And a very fast leap at that...

You're wrong. History will vindicate Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. History is on our side. :marx: :engles:

2nd December 2005, 06:10

red_che, quoting The Communist Manifesto: "The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."

Nonsense! Feudalism constantly suppressed capitalism and capitalist property forms. Feudal property was not bourgeois property; neither was it communism. Any person, place, idea, or thing can be treated as property, because property is the relation of violence between people regarding things, ideas, places, and other people. Capitalism is all about commodification of all properties, so as capitalism develops, any relation between people over a thing is ever-more likely to be bourgeois property in the bourgeois common market. And that is especially true of "common" bourgeois property owned for the rich by the state.

He was speaking of present day (of the time when he wrote it). The only property that exists now is bourgeois! He didn't have to speak of feudal property as it had already been abolished. I think this is clear. Looking for "mistakes" of this nature in his writing is really a waste of time as it is common sense what he meant by that sentence.

Marx wrote a lot of really stupid ideas, and he himself said in later life that he wanted to change a lot in the Manifesto, but that it had become a historical document. And we all know how strict Marx was about correctly citing.

Could you find out where he said that? I've heard people say that about him but never could find anywhere that cites it, unfortunately.

Just because someone writes some sound arguments does not mean that every word he writes is logical. And Marx, as a person of bourgeois family origins, used the bourgeois method of verbosity to drown out the words of others. He might not have known better, but you should.

He didn't do that to "drown out the words of others". He did that because that was the practiced writing style of the time.

1. "Communism" is the condition of being working-class people in struggle to end their existence as workers. Marx was not of working-class family origin; therefore, he could not possibly be a communist. Marx was a socialist.

"Those who actively support the interests of the working-class as a whole, without any kind of prejudice. Communists live to unite workers, instead of divide them along imaginery lines, whether based on gender, nationality, race, or ideology."

He was a communist through and through.

2. Marx opposed communism. His advocacy as a here-and-now solution of a "lower stage of communism" that had every form and substance of capitalism--in logical terms, this is opposition to "higher stage of communism" by continual postponement, delay, and diversion and substitution of struggle towards not-"higher-stage-of-communism" goals.

How does it have "every form and substance of capitalism"? Please, explain yourself.

Floyce White

2nd December 2005, 07:37

Lazar: "He was speaking of present day (of the time when he wrote it)."

I do not disagree that feudal relations were largely defeated and replaced with capitalist ones by the mid 1800s in Central Europe. But pro-feudal, anti-capitalist struggle was very much "hot" war even at that late date.

Lazar: "Could you find out where he said that?"

Marx and Engels' joint preface to the German edition of 1872 is the famous instance of the remark that the document was historical and should not be changed. They made a couple of minor critcisms there, and some different though minor ones in other documents too. I found many with a Google search of marxists.org. This is not a factual error on my part. We simply disagree about whether "a lot" is the correct way to phrase this. I agree that Marx and Engels never later opposed their hypothesis about a "lower stage of communism."

Lazar: "He didn't do that to 'drown out the words of others.' He did that because that was the practiced writing style of the time."

News commentators and "media personalities" rambling on and on from the Teleprompter is the practiced video style of this time. It is still drowning out others--especially those whose words never appear in books or on television.

Lazar: "Those who actively support the interests of the working-class as a whole, without any kind of prejudice."

Thousands of petty bourgeois--and collectively, tens of millions--involve themselves in the organizations and movement of the working class in every country and in every generation. This is not an unfathomable collage of individual personal narratives. This is not a matter of the "good character" or "lack of prejudice" of individuals. This is not workers and capitalists hand-in-hand for "human issues" that "transcend class." It is a mass phenomenon that goes to the very core of petty-bourgeois being. Petty capitalists are capitalists. Being capitalist means using others to accumulate property and therefore more power over others. Capitalists intervene in workers' organization to co-opt them to fight en masse for bourgeois causes. It is Pollyanna to play it off as a few "active supporters" here and there.

Lazar: "How does it have 'every form and substance of capitalism?'"

Politics itself is a form of class society. In communism, there will be no classes, therefore no political or any other form of struggle or mediation and hiding of struggle. The hypothetical "lower stage" would supposedly be a period of continued political and other struggles. Otherwise, many socialists advocate money (or "labor vouchers," etc.), a state, employment, rent, and the like, as features of this "lower stage." The features of "dictatorship of the proletariat" have been written upon very extensively, with many differing opinions. Since "Marxism-Leninism" is the most influential trend, Lenin's comments may suffice as a beginning point for discussion.

Severian

2nd December 2005, 14:08

Originally posted by I'd Rather Be [email protected] 1 2005, 04:10 AM
“The Workers and Peasants Government has decreed that Kronstadt and the rebelling ships must immediately submit to the authority of the Soviet Republic. I therefore order all who have revolted against the socialist fatherland to lay down their arms at once. Recalcitrants should be disarmed and turned over to the Soviet authorities. The commissars and other members of the government who have been arrested must be liberated at once. Only those who surrender unconditionally can expect mercy from the Soviet Republic. I am simultaneously giving orders to prepare for the suppression of the rebellion and the subjugation of the sailors by armed force. All responsibility for the harm that may be suffered by the peaceful population will rest entirely on the heads of the White Guard mutineers. This warning is final.”

—Trotsky, Kamenev, Ultimatum to Kronstadt
What's your source for this quote? I'd guess it's fabricated. Both from style and the fact Trotsky wasn't personally involved in suppressing the mutiny. (Really, I don't know why anarchists are so determined to say he was; it's not like it matters politically.)

Also, you're conflating the Bolsheviks' course of action in Russia and the Stalinists' in Spain; in fact those are opposite. One aimed at revolution; the other at keeping the Spanish Kerenskys in power.

YKTMX

2nd December 2005, 14:41

Yes, where would the Anarchists be without Kronstadt, eh?

I mean, what exactly is the suggestion here? Is it that the crushing of a petty-bourgeois rebellion is illegitimate or is that the course of the revolution would have been diffirent if the Kronstadt sailors had 'won' in '21?

As Severian points, no one doubts the Bolshevik put the rebellion down, so simply shouting quotes from Bolsheviks about them doing so is totally meaningless.

red_che

3rd December 2005, 00:27

Stop quoting others and write what YOU think.

Looks like redstar have found an ally..... ;)

I'll quote whoever I want for as long as they clearly express what I think.

I'll quote whatever I think is the best source for my comments.

If you understand it, that's good.

If you don't, that's fine.

If you agree with me, that's great.

If not, doesn't matter. <_<

Nonsense! Feudalism constantly suppressed capitalism and capitalist property forms. Feudal property was not bourgeois property; neither was it communism. Any person, place, idea, or thing can be treated as property, because property is the relation of violence between people regarding things, ideas, places, and other people. Capitalism is all about commodification of all properties, so as capitalism develops, any relation between people over a thing is ever-more likely to be bourgeois property in the bourgeois common market. And that is especially true of "common" bourgeois property owned for the rich by the state.

You're at lost in our discussion... :D :D :D

Just because someone writes some sound arguments does not mean that every word he writes is logical. And Marx, as a person of bourgeois family origins, used the bourgeois method of verbosity to drown out the words of others. He might not have known better, but you should.

To repeat, Marx wrote a lot of nonsense. Don't be a dogmatist and repeat it. Stop quoting others and write what YOU think.

I'd Rather Be Drinking: "Marx was not the only communist."

Marx was not a communist.

1. "Communism" is the condition of being working-class people in struggle to end their existence as workers. Marx was not of working-class family origin; therefore, he could not possibly be a communist. Marx was a socialist.

2. Marx opposed communism. His advocacy as a here-and-now solution of a "lower stage of communism" that had every form and substance of capitalism--in logical terms, this is opposition to "higher stage of communism" by continual postponement, delay, and diversion and substitution of struggle towards not-"higher-stage-of-communism" goals.

zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZ

(redstar)
Particularly ideas about the future.
But when it comes to a "vision of the future", all they can promise is a "kinder and gentler" despotism derived from Russian and Chinese sources.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a consolidated theory of the revolutionary practices and struggles of the proletariat. It provides a clear path towards the attainment of communism.

How about you? You can't even give one clear picture of how to attain communism. All you know is merely, "wait, let's not do anything, it is not yet time, the condition isn't right." That's all you know. That's all you can provide.

Comrade Lazar, thanks for the help... :marx: :engles:

redstar2000

3rd December 2005, 04:06

Originally posted by red_che
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a consolidated theory of the revolutionary practices and struggles of the proletariat. It provides a clear path towards the attainment of communism.

You copied that from somebody, didn't you?

Perhaps something published by the RCP.

It has that musty odor...like a 19th century papal proclamation.

The semantic content of such assertions approaches zero...and it is so far removed from empirical reality as to be simply ludicrous.

But that's "western Maoism" for you...more and more a theology.

How about you? You can't even give one clear picture of how to attain communism.

Guilty!!!

I am not a prophet and have no interest in degrading myself to that level.

I don't know what "a clear picture of how to attain communism" is...and no one else does either.

What I do know is that anyone who claims that they "know how to attain communism" has immediately identified themselves as charlatans.

No one knows that at this point and it will likely be many decades before anyone does.

Just copying Lenin or Mao would be an act of genuinely outstanding stupidity...no significant number of modern workers would ever be so dumb.

One curious note: there do seem to still be a few people "on the left" who search for "ultimate answers" and "final truths". Maoism does provide this dubious consolation to the problems of living in an uncertain world.

But it's nevertheless sad to see people fall into that crap...even someone like red_che. Even he might have someday made a real contribution to proletarian revolution. Even he might have learned to actually think...instead of just regurgitating the archaic formulas of peasant revolutionaries.

Well, that's how it goes...particularly in periods of reaction like this one.

History is on our side.

What will you do, I wonder, when you find out it isn't? Will you put your tail between your legs and go crawling back to the ruling class, begging forgiveness for the "sins of your youth"? :(

That's what a whole lot of people who worshiped at your church did.

Or will you finally begin to use your brain and think critically about social reality?

Like Marx did. :)

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

I'd Rather Be Drinking

3rd December 2005, 10:24

To Severian:

The quotes are from a René Reisel article called "Preliminaries on Councils and Councilist Organisation"

Trotsky was in charge of the Red Army. He gave orders for the crushing of Kronstadt.

To ...murderedX:

I'm no anarchist. I have no hang-ups about democracy and respecting the rights of the bourgeoisie (although neither do the better anarchists). That's not what the Kronstadt rebellion was. It wasn't petit-bourgeois or even peasant reaction. It was a proletarian rebellion against the bolsheviks. Before the rebellion, Trotsky himself, even called the Kronstadt sailors "the pride and glory of the revolution" and "the reddest of the red."

I'm not suggesting that Kronstadt could have won and changed the whole course of the revolution, and created communism in Russia. It was really more of a last gasp of working class resistance to the bolshevik government. At that point, the revolution had been all but defeated, and the bolsheviks were pretty much free to build soviet capitalism as they wanted. If you'll notice though, the demands of kronstadt were againts the control of workers organizations by the bolshevik party, not for the rights of private property.

As for the Bolsheviks vs. the Spanish Stalinists. True there are important distances. They were both, however, enemies of proletarian revolution.

3rd December 2005, 19:06

You didn't understand it, really. The League was a pure propaganda society in "peace time". Can you understand what this means? Did you see that phrase? Did you read the entire text that I posted? Or did you just select a phrase out of it to use against the entire context of it?

Redstar, could you reply to this please?

Comrade Lazar, thanks for the help... marx.gif engles.gif

Sorry, I'm not your "comrade". I'm nowhere near your "comrade". I find people like you to be horribly misinformed and incapable of independent critical thought.

redstar2000

4th December 2005, 02:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:17 PM

You didn't understand it, really. The League was a pure propaganda society in "peace time". Can you understand what this means? Did you see that phrase? Did you read the entire text that I posted? Or did you just select a phrase out of it to use against the entire context of it?

Redstar, could you reply to this please?
Well, if Engels had "other ideas" about what the Communist League "should do" in a revolutionary period, one can only speculate about what they might have been.

To simply assume that the League "would" have metamorphosized into a "vanguard party" seeking to establish a despotism "in the name of the proletariat" may "sound logical" to a Leninist.

But there's no evidence for such an assumption.

Marx and Engels were pretty blunt about what they thought should be done...on many occasions. If they had any ideas pointing in the direction of a "vanguard party", they would have expressed them plainly.

Their complete silence about this suggests to me that they simply never thought of such a thing.

A great deal of the correspondence between Marx and Engels has been preserved and published. If they had ever even "toyed" with such a concept, how is it that nothing is found in their correspondence on the subject?

Wiggle and squirm as they might. the Leninists cannot avoid the historical fact that the "necessity of a vanguard party" was invented by their hero.

It has nothing at all to do with Marx and Engels...who, in my opinion, would have opposed the whole concept if someone had proposed it in their own lifetimes.

After all, one of the fundamental axioms of historical materialism is that history is made by the masses...not by a small group of "great men".

Leninists don't like this idea at all...since it contradicts their own evaluation of themselves.

I strongly suspect that inside every active Leninist is a "great man" trying to "emerge" to "change the world into his own image".

In the last century, this often resulted in tragedy.

Now, it's just farce. :lol:

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

NovelGentry

4th December 2005, 06:44

On the concept of the Communist League and the First International being structurally similar to a Leninist party or anything of that nature, this is quoted directly from Marx in an interview with R. Landor.

... This would imply a centralized form of government of the International, whereas the real form is designedly that which gives the greatest play to local energy and independence. In fact the International is not properly a government for the working class at all. It is a bond of a union rather than a controlling force.

...

The association does not dictate the form of political movements; it only requires a pledge as to their end. It is a network of affiliated societies spreading all over the world of labor. In each part of the world some special aspect of the problem presents itself, and the workmen there address themselves to its consideration in their own way.

red_che

4th December 2005, 06:57

Marx and Engels were pretty blunt about what they thought should be done...on many occasions. If they had any ideas pointing in the direction of a "vanguard party", they would have expressed them plainly.

I would like Marx to speak for himself. Here's what he said. I "copied" it again for you to see yourself.

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

And I will never stop copying and pasting quotes such as these until you have understood it.

What I am putting here in this forum are the basic principles by which my thoughts stand.

I am a revolutionary deeply involved in revolutionary activities. Such principles are my guide to actions. I never made dogmatic and empiricist applications of such theories. I just make them as my guide to action in every revolutionary work I do.

No matter what you say, redstar, these are the resounding truths:

1. That the capitalist system is on its final stage and on the eve of destruction. That the economic foundations, where it stands, is shaky and vulnerable. That the further development of its mode of production (economic system) is barred by the continued depreciation of the existing relations of production. That while its productive forces still have some revolutionary advances particularly in technology, its relations of production (consumption and wages) hinders the further development of the entire capitalist system. As such, this contradiction erupts into crises and it creates sharper class contradictions.

2. That there is no other way now but to stage socialist revolutions everywhere and anywhere capitalist relations and productions exist. That the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the only instrument the entire proletarian class have to end bourgeois rule and exploitation.

3.That Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has consolidated all these principles and theories based on the actual struggles and confrontations of the proletariat with the bourgeois worldwide. And that it has provided the necessary experience for the prolteriat to face the bourgeoisie in all battles.

4. That the proletarian revolution had began.

5. That the proletarian struggle now is not just a waiting game.

:hammer:

4th December 2005, 07:00

Gent, could you provide a source as to where I can find the complete interview?

NovelGentry

4th December 2005, 13:06

Not sure about online, but it's a selection in a book titled The Portable Karl Marx, published by Penguin Books.

redstar2000

4th December 2005, 16:40

Hear the words of the prophet, red_che, and hearken to them!

1. The capitalist system is on its final stage and on the eve of destruction.

Lenin said the same thing back in 1914. And a whole bunch of people said that back in the early 1930s...it really looked plausible then.

Now? I don't think so.

Just because we want something to happen soon does not mean that it really is going to happen soon.

2. That there is no other way now but to stage socialist revolutions everywhere and anywhere capitalist relations and productions exist.

There is no measurable support at the present time for your "socialist revolutions" in any of the advanced capitalist countries.

In the "third world", your "socialist revolutions" will inevitably be "socialist" in words and capitalist in deeds.

It's 1789 in those places.

3.That Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has consolidated all these principles and theories based on the actual struggles and confrontations of the proletariat with the bourgeois worldwide. And that it has provided the necessary experience for the proletariat to face the bourgeoisie in all battles.

I don't see that "MLM" has "consolidated" so much as a cup of coffee...so far. Your claims stand thus far refuted by ugly reality.

4. That the proletarian revolution had began.

I think you mean "has begun"...though chronological clarity has never been a strong point for those in the prophesy racket.

In any event, if you are speaking of our own era, you are just seeing visions.

At the usual risk of being called "gloomy" and "pessimistic", I frankly expect that the young readers of this board will be as old as I am now before massive proletarian revolutions take place, first in western Europe.

That's something I would very much like to be wrong about...but I don't think I am.

5. That the proletarian struggle now is not just a waiting game.

It never has been...even back in the time of Marx and Engels. There's always been "something useful" to do to advance the struggle.

Where your apocalyptic vision goes wrong is the suggestion that it's already happening.

No, it obviously isn't "happening" and it's not going to for many decades into the future.

The tone of your post could have been directly borrowed from The Book of Revelations...it demands that the reader respond at once!

Accept your vision or be eternally damned!

It's a superstitious view of reality expressed in secular terminology. Things "exist" because you say they exist.

Ok, here's my "revelation". I predict that within the next ten years, all the threads discussing Leninism-Maoism will be moved to the Religion subforum.

By that time, people will have concluded that such is their appropriate location. :)

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

Severian

5th December 2005, 01:47

Originally posted by I'd Rather Be [email protected] 3 2005, 04:35 AM
To Severian:

The quotes are from a René Reisel article called "Preliminaries on Councils and Councilist Organisation"
Which doesn't help: it just changes the question to where Reisel got it from, or if he/she made it up.

But I found a source, turns out it's genuine. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1921-mil/ch60.htm)

If you'll notice though, the demands of kronstadt were againts the control of workers organizations by the bolshevik party, not for the rights of private property.

The Kronstadt mutiny's demands (http://www.humanities.uci.edu/~rmoeller/readings/kronstadt_demands.html)

11. To grant the peasant full right to do what he sees fit with his land and also to possess cattle, which he must maintain and manage with his own strength, but without employing hired labor.
....
15. To permit free artisan production with individual labor.

The NEP was in part a concession to Kronstadt and similar expressions of peasant discontent.

Your other points were refuted decades ago (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-kronstadt.htm) and the refutation was confirmed by recently documents from the now-open Soviet archives. (http://www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html)

***

About NovelGentry's "First International" quote....the First International was not in any sense a communist organization. It played a progressive role for a time...but Marx and Engels thought such an all-inclusive group could only play such a role for a time.Letter of Engels to Sorge (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/letters/74_09_12.htm)

The Communist League was a rather different organization. Not comparable to the Bolshevik Party certainly - if anybody's trying to deny that Lenin had a new concept of party organization, they're wrong - but...see the Manifesto quote Red_che gave.

That's an important concept for a whole number of reasons - most of them not directly related to party organization - and a concept little understood and less applied by most of those claiming to be communist.

NovelGentry

5th December 2005, 01:53

That's an important concept for a whole number of reasons - most of them not directly related to party organization - and a concept little understood and less applied by most of those claiming to be communist.

I fail to see where Marx makes any distinction in terms of practical control between communists and the rest of the proletariat. I have read that quote many times, he is certainly making a distinction which outlines what a communist is, but I don't see anything in there that implies communists create some separate indivisible organization from the whole merely that they are different from the whole in such and such a way.

red_che

6th December 2005, 07:01

Just because we want something to happen soon does not mean that it really is going to happen soon.

Nobody is saying that we want something to happen the soonest time. No one, not even in my posts did I ever said something of that nature. What I am saying is that the situation now is very far from what you were depicting them.

There is no measurable support at the present time for your "socialist revolutions" in any of the advanced capitalist countries.

That may be attributed to the immense concentration of Imperialist (economic, political and cultural) powers in the industrialized countries, particularly the US, UK, Germany, France, etc. That is why socialism may not necessarily begin in the advanced countries, it can be in its weakest links, the less developed nations.

It's 1789 in those places.

It's far different now.

I don't see that "MLM" has "consolidated" so much as a cup of coffee...so far. Your claims stand thus far refuted by ugly reality.

Your comments thus far remains baseless.

At the usual risk of being called "gloomy" and "pessimistic", I frankly expect that the young readers of this board will be as old as I am now before massive proletarian revolutions take place, first in western Europe.

As I have said, the socialist revolution need not begin in the Industrialized countries.

Where your apocalyptic vision goes wrong is the suggestion that it's already happening.

No, it obviously isn't "happening" and it's not going to for many decades into the future.

Not true. You are really detached from the material world. You don't see what's happening around. Or are you just limited in this forum that you don't see what's outside?

Accept your vision or be eternally damned!

Accept the realities or you'd be forever lost!

I have read that quote many times, he is certainly making a distinction which outlines what a communist is, but I don't see anything in there that implies communists create some separate indivisible organization from the whole merely that they are different from the whole in such and such a way.

That is where I say the vanguard party stands for.

NovelGentry

6th December 2005, 17:26

That is where I say the vanguard party stands for.

But the vanguard does divide itself from the whole as a portion of society which maintains the exclusive right to restructing the society towards socialism. I don't know of any historical example where it has merely offered itself for leadership, practically speaking, it demands it.

Led Zeppelin

6th December 2005, 17:38

I don't know of any historical example where it has merely offered itself for leadership, practically speaking, it demands it.

I haven't seen Socialism be achieved in any one nation, does that mean that it won't happen?

NovelGentry

6th December 2005, 19:44

I haven't seen Socialism be achieved in any one nation, does that mean that it won't happen?

That's not an accurate analogy. I'm not saying you can't have a vanguard differentiated which offers leadership rather than demands it, but in this particular instance it seems we're talking about whether or not the Leninist vanguard is that. Historically, if there should be any example of a Leninist vanguard you'd think it would have been Lenin's. Lenin and his vanguard did not merely differentiate and offer leadership, they demanded leadership. To say that's what Marx is implying with that particular quote from the manifesto is absurd.

Led Zeppelin

7th December 2005, 13:07

That's not an accurate analogy. I'm not saying you can't have a vanguard differentiated which offers leadership rather than demands it, but in this particular instance it seems we're talking about whether or not the Leninist vanguard is that. Historically, if there should be any example of a Leninist vanguard you'd think it would have been Lenin's.

It's not that simple, you disregard the fact that Lenin knew that Russia didn't have the material conditions required for Socialism, let alone the consciousness, they had too demand leadership, if they didn't they wouldn't have lasted for more than a year.

My point is that Lenin also knew that they had to offer their leadership to the class-conscious proletariat, but since they weren't a majority in Russia at the time they had to "create" them first, and "make" them a majority, before they could "offer their leadership" in the form of proletarian democracy.

Zingu

7th December 2005, 13:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:51 PM

At the usual risk of being called "gloomy" and "pessimistic", I frankly expect that the young readers of this board will be as old as I am now before massive proletarian revolutions take place, first in western Europe.

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

NovelGentry

7th December 2005, 17:02

they had too demand leadership, if they didn't they wouldn't have lasted for more than a year.

I understand that. I've expressed many times that no matter who was leading that "party" or movement, and in the future, no matter who had won out in that party (Trotsky or Stalin) that you'd face the same type of problem where leadership had to be demanded and centralized to attempt what they wanted to attempt.

But that is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. If you need a Leninist vanguard to achieve any attempt at socialism, you necessarily are lacking the conditions for socialism and as such are severely lacking the conditions for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Whether Lenin realized this or not is not the issue, practically he disregarded it.

My point is that Lenin also knew that they had to offer their leadership to the class-conscious proletariat, but since they weren't a majority in Russia at the time they had to "create" them first, and "make" them a majority, before they could "offer their leadership" in the form of proletarian democracy.

How do you create a proletariat by attacking the bourgeoisie? The proletariat develops necessarily with regard to the bourgeoisie. What was the point of Bolshevik intervention then? Why not allow the duma to go through the pains of any growing parliamentary system to eventually strike at capitalism itself?

It's not really a notion that Lenin misunderstood these things, more that he ignored them.

I'd Rather Be Drinking

7th December 2005, 17:57

Look Severian, to point me to something written by Trotsky as a way to argue against Kronstadt would be like someone pointing me to an article written by Donald Rumsfeld to argue against Falluja. But, that's beside the point.

The question of Kronstadt came up in a discussion of the DoP in Russia. I am not arguing that the Kronstadt rebels were all conscious communists. Obviously they weren't. Hence, the demand for limited peasant property you pointed out (arguably as well as the demand for handicraft). The majority of the demands, however were about more democracy and less party control. But in these too, there's nothing necessarily radical. But that's not the point. If workers rebel and demand something (say a small wage increase) and then the state comes in and crushes them, it isn't difficult to figure out who's side we're on. And we wouldn't be convinced by the government saying that the workers weren't demanding an end to capitalism. Perhaps a better example would be worker-run factories in Argentina. Workers took over factories, but the movement was not strong enough to destroy capitalism, so workers were forced to institute a worker-run capitalism in order to survive. It's a last desperate gasp of a movement that is in the process of being defeated. Still, what communist would support the crushing of worker-run factories by the government?

I'm not suggesting we romanticize Kronstadt and build up some Kronstadtist ideology. But Kronstadt does show loud and clearl that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Russia, was (by 1921 at least) a lie. It was the dictatorship of the party over the proletariat.

red_che

8th December 2005, 02:36

But the vanguard does divide itself from the whole as a portion of society which maintains the exclusive right to restructing the society towards socialism.

That's not true. The Bolsheviks and any Communist Party does not divide or disassociate itself from the masses of the people. They go to the masses and integrate with them. In fact, there was a mass recruitment conducted during Stalin's time. The DOP is not a one party rule, it is a class rule expressed by the party during the socialist construction where class contradiction still exist.

I don't know of any historical example where it has merely offered itself for leadership, practically speaking, it demands it.

The party never offers nor demands leadership. It is a necessity in the socialist construction. It is the role they have to play. Not every proletariat are freed from bourgeois influences and prejudices right after they have claimed poltical power. Bourgeois influences weren't just limited to their economic and political power, it also extends up to the superstructure of the society, the cultural superstructure (through the use of religion, educational system, mass media, etc.) So a vanguard party, composed of the advanced section of the proletariat, is needed in order to lead the entire proletariat in the socialist construction and smashing of class contradictions, private property, exploitation and oppression and advance through communism.

Floyce White

8th December 2005, 05:02

red_che: "I'll quote whatever I think is the best source for my comments. If you understand it, that's good. If you don't, that's fine. . . . You're at lost in our discussion"

If I "don't" understand? I'm "lost?" Hah! I was studying theory while you were still playing with the poo in your diapers.

NovelGentry

8th December 2005, 05:39

The party never offers nor demands leadership. It is a necessity in the socialist construction. It is the role they have to play.

Why is it the Leninist line always seems to echo the John Stewart Mill-like bourgeois mantra about the necessity of the non-mediocre leadership? And like John Stewart Mill they can never safely posit how one is determined to be anything more than mediocre.

Not every proletariat are freed from bourgeois influences and prejudices right after they have claimed poltical power.

I don't think any proletarian is freed of such influences, that includes the holy party. I see nothing Marxist about the fairy tale that one can, in all entirity, shed the " tradition of all dead generations" which "weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."

So a vanguard party, composed of the advanced section of the proletariat, is needed in order to lead the entire proletariat in the socialist construction and smashing of class contradictions, private property, exploitation and oppression and advance through communism.

I completely agree, it is needed... in societies which are not even close to the epoch of socialism. I mean, let's be clear about what Marxism really says -- such human ideas are necessarily the product of economic and material conditions, not independent and rising above them.

In 1832 when the first reform act was passed in England it was not on the basis ideological progression, but on the basis that the new economic relations arisen from industrialization necessitated such an act.

I find it heavily disappointing that the Leninists cannot even recognize their own idealism. They pronounce, much like the anarchists that ideas are the engine of history. Why else would it be so necessary for such great thinkers to show us the way? Worse, at least most anarchists seem to bow to a social idea, the Leninists are so backwards they claim it is the ideas of only a select few which "[smash] class contradiction, private property, exploitation and opression." The only thing one should be compelled to think capable of achieving such a task is the same thing which called these things into existence. The Leninists are here to convince us it was a handful of men! :lol:

red_che

9th December 2005, 05:22

Why is it the Leninist line always seems to echo the John Stewart Mill-like bourgeois mantra about the necessity of the non-mediocre leadership? And like John Stewart Mill they can never safely posit how one is determined to be anything more than mediocre.

Why is it that people like you always resort to this petty name-dropping which does not make any sense and only obscures the issue?

I mean, let's be clear about what Marxism really says -- such human ideas are necessarily the product of economic and material conditions...

That's true.. I agree..

...not independent and rising above them.

I never said this one, nor did I imply such a thing. Please do not put words into my mouth. :angry:

They pronounce, much like the anarchists that ideas are the engine of history.

Can you show where this thing was said by Lenin or by any "Leninist" parties? Don't just accuse or twist everything what was said.

the Leninists are so backwards they claim it is the ideas of only a select few which "[smash] class contradiction, private property, exploitation and opression."

Again, I pity you for merely making such statements where you cannot refute our arguments. Don't twist what I said, gentleman.

To be clear with you, what I said was that bourgeois influences was not only limited to their economic and political power. It extends up to the cultural superstructure where they use religion, educational system and mass media to further control the minds of the proletariat and the people. That is why DOP is to be established (read: proletarian state) led by the vanguard party. By leadership, it is meant that the vanguard party will lead the whole class, and not do everything themselves (the party). Got that? Is it clear? <_<

9th December 2005, 05:30

By leadership, it is meant that the vanguard party will lead the whole class, and not do everything themselves (the party).

Emphasis yours! :lol:

NovelGentry

9th December 2005, 05:34

Why is it that people like you always resort to this petty name-dropping which does not make any sense and only obscures the issue?

It would make plenty of sense if you were familiar with John Stewart Mill.

That is why DOP is to be established (read: proletarian state) led by the vanguard party. By leadership, it is meant that the vanguard party will lead the whole class, and not do everything themselves (the party). Got that? Is it clear?

And on what grounds is the vanguard party qualified to do such? Who decides their qualifications? Why is it every proletarian is not yet freed from bourgeois influence, but somehow the vanguard is?

Led Zeppelin

9th December 2005, 14:37

I've expressed many times that no matter who was leading that "party" or movement, and in the future, no matter who had won out in that party (Trotsky or Stalin) that you'd face the same type of problem where leadership had to be demanded and centralized to attempt what they wanted to attempt.

Which is nonsense of course, if Lenin was leading the party I'm sure things would've been different.

Of course this really isn't an argument, my argument is that if a real Leninist had "led the party" it would've been different as well, I'm sure the state would have been democratized post-industrialization.

But that is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. If you need a Leninist vanguard to achieve any attempt at socialism, you necessarily are lacking the conditions for socialism and as such are severely lacking the conditions for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, you lack them, that doesn't mean you can't "build" them.

Whether Lenin realized this or not is not the issue, practically he disregarded it.

Yes, you're right, Lenin wasn't a vulgar evolutionist, he was a revolutionist.

How do you create a proletariat by attacking the bourgeoisie?

Industrialization.

The proletariat develops necessarily with regard to the bourgeoisie.

The vanguard/party, i.e., the most advanced section of the proletariat, can also industrialize the state, and therefore "create" a proletariat.

NovelGentry

9th December 2005, 19:32

Yes, you lack them, that doesn't mean you can't "build" them.

I sure would hope not, if lacking them means you can't build them then I have no clue how any nation would become socialist, let alone advanced through capitalism.

The point is of course that along with building these conditions, you necessarily build a bourgeoisie, or at least an institute of equal magnitude (the state in the USSR). And just like with a regular capitalist class, the economic relations of those who compose the state are going to necessarily give them the same interests as any other capitalist class.

Industrialization.

So the industrialization of the USSR was exploitative? This is of course what you're saying. The proletariat is an exploited class, forced to sell it's labor power in order to survive... the industrialization created this class (or so you say), so where's it's antagonist?

The vanguard/party, i.e., the most advanced section of the proletariat, can also industrialize the state, and therefore "create" a proletariat.

Again, how do you create a proletariat without exploitation and wage slavery? That is the condition of the proletariat. If you don't admit that such things existed then you can't say there was ever a proletariat, existing or created. And if you admit such things existed, who was the exploiter and master?

Led Zeppelin

10th December 2005, 15:27

The point is of course that along with building these conditions, you necessarily build a bourgeoisie, or at least an institute of equal magnitude (the state in the USSR). And just like with a regular capitalist class, the economic relations of those who compose the state are going to necessarily give them the same interests as any other capitalist class.

This is simply not true, and a slap in the face of historical reality.

You disregard the fact that the USSR did not have a Capitalist economy, "the anarchy of production" did not reign in the USSR, at least not from 1930 until 1960 or so.

People like redstar and yourself like to call the USSR a "major corporation" or "USSR inc.", this proves that you don't know anything about Marxist economics.

If you did, you would have realized that the USSR's economy was not based on maximizing profit, that it was not based on generating profit, but rather was based on supplying the demands of the people, which is --what I call-- a Socialist economy, but of course we must not forget the role of the bureaucracy in the production system, which was to exploit the proletariat, although it was very minimal exploitation, it still was exploitation.

So the industrialization of the USSR was exploitative? This is of course what you're saying.

Yes, that is indeed what I am saying, it was exploitative.

The proletariat is an exploited class, forced to sell it's labor power in order to survive... the industrialization created this class (or so you say), so where's it's antagonist?

This is where you are mistaken, once again.

Although I do say that the Stalinist bureaucracy exploited the proletariat, I am most certainly not saying that a proletariat cannot be "created" without exploitation.

To answer this question we must define the meaning of proletariat, or rather; class-conscious proletariat.

A proletarian is a person who sells his or her labour power to survive, a wage-slave, a class-conscious proletarian is a person who knows that he or she is exploited under Capitalism, a person who knows and understands that societies are composed of classes, i.e., a Communist.

Now what you are saying is that a person has to be a wage-slave and exploited to be a proletarian, this is nonsense of course.

If a person is a wage-slave, as proletarians are under a Socialist economic system, but is not exploited, does that mean that he or she cannot become class-conscious? This person has to be exploited to understand what the word means, right? That's what you're saying, you're saying that a person has to have "felt it" to "know it".

Here is where your "theory" comes to a dead-end, future generations of proletarians, who already live under Socialism, are also not exploited, so how will they ever become class-conscious?

Indeed, how can people like me, who have never worked, be class-conscious? I haven't "felt" exploitation myself, yet I understand what it means, your "theory" doesn't take this into consideration, therefore it can be disregared like Kautskyism was.

Again, how do you create a proletariat without exploitation and wage slavery? That is the condition of the proletariat. If you don't admit that such things existed then you can't say there was ever a proletariat, existing or created. And if you admit such things existed, who was the exploiter and master?

See above, you create a proletariat without exploitation by educating them about exploitation, same goes for wage-slavery.

NovelGentry

10th December 2005, 17:17

Now what you are saying is that a person has to be a wage-slave and exploited to be a proletarian, this is nonsense of course.

The condition of being a wage slave is not exploitative? Wage at all is indicative of exploitation, let alone the fact that you are forced into it. Yes, a proletarian has to be a wage slave, yes, being a wage slave means you are exploited.

If a person is a wage-slave, as proletarians are under a Socialist economic system, but is not exploited, does that mean that he or she cannot become class-conscious?

There's no such thing as a wage-slave under Socialist economy.

This person has to be exploited to understand what the word means, right? That's what you're saying, you're saying that a person has to have "felt it" to "know it".

Yes, they have to have felt it to know it, being determines consciousness. If they know it, then they do little more than, as you put it, "understand what the word means." Unfortunately, understanding the meaning of a word is not nearly enough.

Here is where your "theory" comes to a dead-end, future generations of proletarians, who already live under Socialism, are also not exploited, so how will they ever become class-conscious?

They don't need to become class conscious. Classes are dying out, remember? Nor can one consider them proletarians, at least not in the sense they are now. Just like no one no longer considers the bourgeoisie to be freedom fighters.

For them it won't be a matter of class consciousness, it'll be a matter of every day consciousness. It will not be class warfare, it will simply be the way the world works -- just as it is for the huge majority of people right now. This isn't to say they won't understand or have knowledge of classes, previous and still existing antagonisms, nor is it to say they will not understand Marxist theory of class struggle, but that's not the same thing as class consciousness, nor does it mean anything about their capacity to commit to it.

Class consciousness isn't something you just fall into, nor is it something you learn out of a book. It's only going to arise at points where class struggle

Indeed, how can people like me, who have never worked, be class-conscious?

You're not. In fact, I'd say there's very few class conscious people here, let alone in the leftist movement as a whole. More radical unions used to be an excellent way for building class consciousness... not so much of that is around anymore. Parties are a cheap substitute... although there are some parties which are extremely worker oriented.

I haven't "felt" exploitation myself, yet I understand what it means

Understanding what something means and being conscious of it are two different things. I understand what it means to be a bat. I don't understand what it's like to be a bat, nor could I ever propose such a thing with any certainty, unless I was a bat. Although more properly speaking this is related to the mind-body problem, it's quite relevant to consciousness as that is one of the major wrench in the spokes of the mind body problem: http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

your "theory" doesn't take this into consideration, therefore it can be disregared like Kautskyism was.

Of course it takes it into consideration. It is just that, unlike you, my theory is not afraid of saying you lack class conciousness, nor is my theory afraid of saying I do... and I do work.

Comrade-Z

10th December 2005, 20:44

11. To grant the peasant full right to do what he sees fit with his land and also to possess cattle, which he must maintain and manage with his own strength, but without employing hired labor.
....
15. To permit free artisan production with individual labor.

Uhhh...where is there any capitalism in these demands? Where is there exploitation? I think you're confusing capitalism with the free-market. Capitalism is, of course, the control of the means of production by the bourgeiosie. A free-market is a way of allocating things that are produced. It is technically possible to have socialism (democratic worker control of means of production) and a free market at the same time, although I don't think such an arrangement is necessarily the most advantageous. A free-market mechanism still has a lot of problems. But to attack demands for free-market measures as being "capitalist" is inaccurate. The Kronstadt workers and sailors were profoundly socialist. Free-market socialism is perhaps not as good as true communism (but isn't that supposed to come later, according to Marxist theory?) Yet, in my book, free-market socialism is a lot better than free-market capitalism, and certainly a lot better than the despotic State-capitalism that was already emerging in Russia by 1921.

Again, I ask the question: What is wrong with earning a living from one's own individual labor? What's wrong with demands #11 and #15? Where is the exploitation? Who in this equation is not earning the full value of his/her labor? Where are the wage-slaves? Sure, where you have a group of individual laborers, there might be some inequality, even though it won't be nearly as severe as under capitalism. But isn't there supposed to be inequality under the "socialist stage" anyways? (From each acc. to ability, to each acc. to ability, yadda yadda yadda.) A society where everyone profited from his/her own individual labor would be socialist, after all (though not communst). Isn't that a step in the right direction?

Is it imperative that workers always be plugged into some collective mass? And what is the deal with the Marxist prejudice against the peasantry? Why do Marxists always scorn the peasants' desire for individual or communal ownership of their land? Isn't that just what workers want with their industries--workers' control, self-management, and earning the full product of their labor? Why should the peasants be denied peasant-control of the farmland? And, of course, don't give me a speech on the need for State-collectivization of the farmland so that the land can be put to use for the benefit of the whole society, yada yada etc. We all know NOW how well that works, and how emancipatory it is to have your life run by a State-commissar and see your efforts siphoned off to some corrupt centralized authority. If we ARE going to have collectivization, it needs to be self-managed peasant-controlled collectivization, such as happened during the Spanish Civil War where the non-Stalinist radicals held sway. It seems to me that this is a major roadblock to communists gaining popularity today--their denial of the right to earn a living from one's individual labor.

redstar2000

10th December 2005, 23:51

Originally posted by Comrade-Z
And what is the deal with the Marxist prejudice against the peasantry?

Has it escaped your attention that the most reactionary part of any given country's population are always its rural inhabitants?

Rural life has been closely associated with ignorance, superstition, and gross servility from the era of classical antiquity to the present day. It seems to be an "inevitable" attribute of class society.

Marx did not refer to "the muck of rural idiocy" because he liked the sound of the words.

Consider the small peasant land-owner and what he perceives to be in his class interests.

By exploiting the labor of his wife and children, he raises enough food to feed himself and his family; whatever surplus is produced, he takes to a village market and sells to the public...for as much as he can get, of course. The money he acquires may be used to purchase commodities that he cannot "make for himself"...or for the purchase of additional land.

Successful peasants acquire more land...which they must either hire labor to work or else lease the land to landless peasants in exchange for a substantial share of the crop.

In either case, peasant society "naturally" differentiates itself into sub-classes of exploiters and exploited.

With the rise of capitalism, this differentiation accelerated. A successful peasant can become a "food wholesaler" to urban grocery stores and restaurants...transforming himself into a capitalist.

Thus, a portion of the successful peasantry become important supporters of the bourgeois revolution against feudalism...the transition to capitalism allows them "more economic room" as the landed aristocracy is broken up and their great estates "go on the market".

Many poor peasants also support bourgeois revolutions. It's their only chance to escape their genuinely miserable situation by acquiring more land...other than moving to the city, of course.

In the advanced capitalist countries, the only peasantry left are now modern petty-bourgeois or heavily exploited immigrant laborers.

In both cases, they're among the most reactionary portions of the whole population.

How a modern proletarian revolution will handle this situation is not easy to anticipate.

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

YKTMX

11th December 2005, 01:42

If you did, you would have realized that the USSR's economy was not based on maximizing profit, that it was not based on generating profit, but rather was based on supplying the demands of the people

This is false. Consumption in the USSR was continually subordinated to the need for quick capital accumulation. The goal of the 'five year plans' was to build up heavy industry, particuarly related to agricultural production and military build up. The living standards improved very little for the average Russian worker - though, obviously, standards for the Stalinist bureaucracy improved much quicker.

In fact, production of certain consumer goods actually decreased during the Soviet 'economic miracle'.

More Fire for the People

11th December 2005, 03:05

In fact, production of certain consumer goods actually decreased during the Soviet 'economic miracle'.
Yes, because everybody needs a blender when they have no jobs, no roads, no cars, no houses, and no schools.

Morpheus

11th December 2005, 05:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:51 PM
Has it escaped your attention that the most reactionary part of any given country's population are always its rural inhabitants?
No it isn't. There are many instances where peasants were on the left and supported revolutionary movements. The Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, Loatian, and many deconolization movements were all heavily supported by peasants. Today peasants in Brazil, Bolivia and other countries and often on the forfront of popular movements. Now, most of these you likely think are "bourgeois" revolutions but whatever you call them, the peasants supported the progressive forces even more than the city dwellers. You yourself admit that peasants will often support bourgeois revolutions. Your own theory says that bourgeois revolutions are more progressive compared to feudalism, and since peasants can support bourgeois revolutions this implies they aren't always the most reactionary section of the population. During a bourgeois revolution, if not elsewhere, they can potentially be the most progressive section.

Consider the small peasant land-owner and what he perceives to be in his class interests.

By exploiting the labor of his wife and children, he raises enough food to feed himself and his family; whatever surplus is produced, he takes to a village market and sells to the public...for as much as he can get, of course. The money he acquires may be used to purchase commodities that he cannot "make for himself"...or for the purchase of additional land.

Successful peasants acquire more land...which they must either hire labor to work or else lease the land to landless peasants in exchange for a substantial share of the crop.

In either case, peasant society "naturally" differentiates itself into sub-classes of exploiters and exploited.

This assumes that all peasants practice private property, that they can buy & sell land. Historically, this isn't true. The most common form of agriculture is the repartional commune. All land belongs to the village, and every family within the village is alloted a specific amount of land based on the number of people within that family. Every couple of years they redivide up the land to take into account changes in population and keep things equal. Individuals cannot gain additional land, only the village can gain additional land. This was used in medieval Europe, pre-revolutionary Russia, ancient Sumeria and many other societies. In addition, sometimes there's no real market to sell surplus on so manufactured goods are produced by the village.

Usually in order to initiate the process you describe some kind of change in the land system has to be implemented. In France, redivisions of the land gradually slowed and then stopped, which eventually lead to inequalities. In 1789 the buying & selling of land by peasants was legalized, which allowed the process you describe to go forward. After the 1905 revolution the Russian gov't tried to do the same thing but the peasants wouldn't go along and insisted on keeping their communes, without which the revolution wouldn't have happened. When landlord's land was confiscated during the revolution, it became part of the village not part of an individual's property. They accelerated the rate of redividing land at an accelerated rate to take into account the new land. Sometimes imposing private property can cause revolts among the peasantry, eg. the Mexican revolution, which throws them to the far left for decades or more.

redstar2000

11th December 2005, 16:29

Originally posted by Morpheus
During a bourgeois revolution, if not elsewhere, [peasants] can potentially be the most progressive section.

Well, maybe. But I'm rather skeptical of that proposition.

Why? Because the peasant "world outlook" is so constrained by ignorance and superstition.

They can't really see "beyond" the breaking up of the great landed estates and the redistribution of land to themselves. And, where applicable, the driving out of the foreigner who threatens their own holdings.

They have a very "narrow horizon".

I think it could be shown with considerable consistency that the "most progressive" elements of any particular bourgeois revolution are not only city-dwellers (including recently urbanized peasants) but "proto-proletarian" elements and artisans who raise the most "radical" demands.

Modern guerrilla "liberation movements" seem to begin when a small number of radical city-dwellers "go to the countryside" and "rouse the peasantry" against the old regime.

This is not to suggest that peasants "can't rebel on their own"...they can and have.

But it's instructive to note what happens when such rebellions succeed -- the leaders of the victorious rebellion promptly set themselves up as a new landed aristocracy.

When you are a peasant, it's almost impossible to "see the world" in any terms other than the accumulation of land.

Being determines consciousness.

As to the "collective tradition" in pre-capitalist peasant life, I agree that such a thing existed on a wide scale.

But it was not "collective" in the sense that we would use that word. As I understand it, the periodic re-distribution of land was actually determined by a small hereditary elite of "village elders"...who "rewarded their supporters" and "punished their enemies".

Thus, however egalitarian "in form" it might have been, I strongly suspect that in practice it was not very egalitarian at all.

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

YKTMX

11th December 2005, 16:34

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 11 2005, 03:05 AM

In fact, production of certain consumer goods actually decreased during the Soviet 'economic miracle'.
Yes, because everybody needs a blender when they have no jobs, no roads, no cars, no houses, and no schools.
I think you misunderstand.

I'm talking about 'luxury consumer goods' like leather shoes and beef. :lol:

Morpheus

11th December 2005, 22:35

I think it could be shown with considerable consistency that the "most progressive" elements of any particular bourgeois revolution are not only city-dwellers (including recently urbanized peasants) but "proto-proletarian" elements and artisans who raise the most "radical" demands.

So do it. For simplicity, let's limit it to the Mexican & Chinese revolutions. Peasants played a huge role in both revolutions and were among the most progressive sections of the populace. Of the major factions in the Mexican revolution, Zapata's peasant army was the most progressive, and it was defeated by Caranza's city-based nationalists. In the Chinese revolution the Communist party originally viewed the city as the locus of revolution, but were forced to turn to the country side because that didn't work. The peasants were more receptive to the revolution than the city dwellers.

This is not to suggest that peasants "can't rebel on their own"...they can and have.

But it's instructive to note what happens when such rebellions succeed -- the leaders of the victorious rebellion promptly set themselves up as a new landed aristocracy.

Not always. Sometimes they set themselves up as a bureaucratic capitalist class, instead. In other cases they essentially cut themselves off from "civilization". Even disregarding all that, setting themselves up as a new ruling class doesn't necessarily make them the most reactionary section of the population - that depends on what they just overthrew.

When you are a peasant, it's almost impossible to "see the world" in any terms other than the accumulation of land.

Unless youv'e had contact with other ways of life, such as by being drafted into World War One, trading with city-dwellers, visiting the city for trade purposes or for a temporary job, being exposed to radical propaganda, etc.

As I understand it, the periodic re-distribution of land was actually determined by a small hereditary elite of "village elders"...who "rewarded their supporters" and "punished their enemies".

In some cases that was true, but in many others it wasn't. The decision making structure varied significantly. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the case I'm most familiar with, power lay with an assembly of the head of each family. The eldest male in every household got one vote. Among those men it was a direct democracy, although women & the young were excluded. During the revolution this changed, and women & the young were given power as well. These repartitional communes aren't perfect, but they have the potential to serve as a springboard into the kind of collectivism we would both prefer. That actually started in the Ukraine, although the bolsheviks shut it down before it could get that far.

redstar2000

12th December 2005, 06:18

Originally posted by Morpheus
So do it. For simplicity, let's limit it to the Mexican & Chinese revolutions.

Come now, I'm not a professional historian with ready access to vast amounts of primary and secondary material.

About Mexico, my ignorance is total.

In China, the "communist" movement began in the cities and I have little doubt that most of the cadre during the "people's war" came from an urban background...perhaps entirely "petty bourgeois intellectuals".

And, at least in my understanding, the most "radical" expression of Mao's "cultural revolution" was the "Shanghai Commune"...which may have even been a kind of proto-proletarian revolution.

These repartitional communes aren't perfect, but they have the potential to serve as a springboard into the kind of collectivism we would both prefer.

Well, Marx thought so too...at the very end of his life. And parts of rural Spain during the "anarchist period" suggest that "more is possible" than my outlook on the peasantry would permit.

Jared Diamond has proposed an idea that makes a great deal of sense to me with regard to the phenomenon of "peasant conservatism".

He points out that peasant life is extremely ecology-dependent. When peasants settle a "new territory", they learn rather quickly "what works" and "what doesn't work". The practices that seem to work well at the moment become "traditional" and innovation is strongly discouraged because it's perceived to threaten survival.

So "written in stone" do those traditional techniques become that even at some later time when those practices have actually wrecked the local ecology, peasants would rather die than abandon them.

I also think there's another "psychological" factor at work in "the mind of the peasant". Peasants depend on the vicissitudes of weather in order to survive. I think this dependence "generates" an attitude of submission.

Other than superstitious ritual, peasants have no control over the weather...and no way to even envision how such a thing might be "done".

City life isolates people from "raw nature"...except during periods of catastrophe. Therefore, that general attitude of submission "withers away"...or at least is greatly weakened.

Moreover, innovation is "valued" in an urban context and often wins considerable financial reward in one form or another.

So...when I look for rebellion that strikes at the root of class society, I look to the cities.

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

red_che

12th December 2005, 08:47

Because the peasant "world outlook" is so constrained by ignorance and superstition.

That was when capitalism wasn't still victorious against the old feudal system. But now, I would say things were different. Peasants, though still vested with selfish interests of having to own the lands they till, the capitalist relations, i.e., wage system that penetrated the old feudal relations, and some advances in their mode of production like the use of tractors and other machines for farming, the peasants' consciousness had somewhat advanced. Besides the proletariat, they are the most revolutionary class now and the most trusted ally of the proletariat, at least in the struggle to remove the remnants of the feudal system. And that relationship with the peasants would somehow advance their consciousness more for the socialist cause.

Jared Diamond has proposed an idea that makes a great deal of sense to me with regard to the phenomenon of "peasant conservatism".

He points out that peasant life is extremely ecology-dependent. When peasants settle a "new territory", they learn rather quickly "what works" and "what doesn't work". The practices that seem to work well at the moment become "traditional" and innovation is strongly discouraged because it's perceived to threaten survival.

So "written in stone" do those traditional techniques become that even at some later time when those practices have actually wrecked the local ecology, peasants would rather die than abandon them.

I also think there's another "psychological" factor at work in "the mind of the peasant". Peasants depend on the vicissitudes of weather in order to survive. I think this dependence "generates" an attitude of submission.

Other than superstitious ritual, peasants have no control over the weather...and no way to even envision how such a thing might be "done".

That is true for the old, primitive feudalism. This is true for the old feudal system where there were no technological advances. But now, most of those peasant superstitions you have said above are slowly dying or withering away. City life, and with it the city culture, have been penetrating rural life. Peasants today are not that ignorant as you were portraying them.

In countries where agrarian mode of production is still dominant, it is important to note the significant role the peasants have in the revolution. In America, where feudal relations is almost extinct, peasant role is not that important anymore as it is in the 3rd world countries.

As I understand it, the periodic re-distribution of land was actually determined by a small hereditary elite of "village elders"...who "rewarded their supporters" and "punished their enemies".

To cite you an example, in the Philippines, where they are waging an armed revolution with peasants as the primary force and the proletariat as the leading class, in the villages where they have established red political power, decisions for redistribution of lands were made not by the village elders but by a committee, the Barrio Revolutionary Committee, as they call it, which is composed of people elected by the villagers. Of course, this is just a miniature example, but this would show how it would look like when they have won their revolution.

But such distribution of lands will depend on the level consciousness of the people/pesants who lived there. In several areas, they can already set up a commune, but it is not done yet because it is still premature to do it. But as soon as they have won the revolution and controlled the state government, a commune will be established there outright because the peasants, the villagers, have high revolutionary consciousness brought by their years of involvement in the revolution and, of course, the technological advances in their means of production.

chilcru

12th December 2005, 13:42

RS2000:
"Well, maybe. But I'm rather skeptical of that proposition.

Why? Because the peasant "world outlook" is so constrained by ignorance and superstition.

They can't really see "beyond" the breaking up of the great landed estates and the redistribution of land to themselves. And, where applicable, the driving out of the foreigner who threatens their own holdings.

They have a very "narrow horizon"."

My reply:

You have only given a one-sided view of the peasants, a rather "narrow horizon".

Since imperialist countries no longer have a substantial population of peasants, I assume the peasants we are talking here refer to peasants in parts of the world where they are still dominant, in parts of the world that have remained largely feudal because imperialism uses the feudal modes of exploitation it had found therein to extract superprofits from these parts; in parts of the world in which, therefore, the agrarian question has remained unresolved.

It is true that, feudal society being atomized into small farms, peasant interest do not go beyond what peasants see with their naked eye. This gives them to a parochial, narrow outlook. Moreover, feudal society being mostly enveloped by a religious or clannish superstructure, this gives to a conservative, reactionary outlook.

But in those parts I have referred to, the peasants have a dual character. You have rightly said, quoting Marx, that being determines consciousness. The dual character of the peasants in the Third World emanates from the material conditions of their labor - they are the most exploited class; not only in terms of their number but also in terms of the intensity of feudal and semi-feudal exploitation. This material condition is a formidable motive force for revolution. Are we "city dwellers" (your words, not mine) not supposed to mine this formidable force? I say that anyone in the Third World who ignores this class can not talk of starting any revolution.

That the agrarian question remains unresolved in these parts gives away that the revolution hereabouts will have to take a bourgeois democratic character. This is the context of the statement from which your above-quoted statement spun off ("During a bourgeois revolution, if not elsewhere, [peasants] can potentially be the most progressive section.").

RS2000:
"So...when I look for rebellion that strikes at the root of class society, I look to the cities."

My reply:

What is the root of Third World class societies where the industrial proletariat is still numercally inferior to the peasantry, seasonal farm workers and landless rural odd-jobbers? What is the root of Third World societies where landlordism still towers over the productive forces in the countryside?

When your barrios are seething cauldrons of peasant restiveness, are communists to stand by in their lairs in the cities and say, "let's back off, that's not our revolution!". No. In the Philippines, we take store by Marx when he said to the effect, "the thing in Germany for the proletarian revolution to start, a second edition of the peasant war is necessary".

RS2000:
"In China, the "communist" movement began in the cities and I have little doubt that most of the cadre during the "people's war" came from an urban background...perhaps entirely "petty bourgeois intellectuals".

My reply:

This is so because it is the duty of Marxist-Leninists to link the struggle of workers in the cities to the peasants' agrarian revolution in the countryside and forge the peasant-worker alliance. It is only by linking with the latter that the numerically inferior proletariat can gain revolutionary force that could tilt the balance of forces between revolution and reaction.

RS2000:
"I also think there's another "psychological" factor at work in "the mind of the peasant". Peasants depend on the vicissitudes of weather in order to survive. I think this dependence "generates" an attitude of submission."

My reply:

I can't imagine how peasants can depend on the vicissitudes of the weather. They depend on the weather, but not on its vicissitudes because they survive against those vicissitudes. But my point is that, it is not the weather that makes them submissive. It is the fact that feudal societies are bulwarks of ideologies that bludgeon peasants into submission.

redstar2000

12th December 2005, 20:09

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)But now, most of those peasant superstitions you have said above are slowly dying or withering away. City life, and with it the city culture, have been penetrating rural life. Peasants today are not that ignorant as you were portraying them.[/b]

You could be right, of course...at least to some extent.

But consider this...

Women 'face worst abuse at home'

A new international study of domestic violence says it is the most common form of violence against women.

The study by the World Health Organization surveyed 24,000 women in 10 countries, among them Japan and Brazil, Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

Researcher Lori Heise said it was not clear what was behind the differences between richer and poorer countries, but many of the areas with higher rates were more rural, traditional communities where the problem had remained largely hidden.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/4465916.stm

My comment on this story was this...

Originally posted by [email protected]
The words "rural" and "traditional" in this context are often regarded as polite euphemisms for religious.

And we know how all the "holy books" regard women, do we not?

When peasants move to the city, their "faith" begins to erode...and domestic violence rates begin to decline.

Coincidence?

How much contact the peasantry today has with "urban culture" obviously differs from place to place.

And there's also a limited amount of "reverse migration"...some economically successful urbanites "move to the country" and take their "urban culture" with them.

Finally, if only "here and there", urban revolutionaries go to the countryside...and while they often shock the peasantry with their "city ways", they also compel the peasantry to realize that there is "a lot more to the world" than they ever realized.

When female Bolsheviks entered the Russian countryside after the October coup, the peasant women first thought they were "prostitutes"...both because of the way they dressed (like men) and because they carried themselves with pride instead of humility.

Those peasant women "learned better" over time...but it took a while.

chilcru
The dual character of the peasants in the Third World emanates from the material conditions of their labor - they are the most exploited class; not only in terms of their number but also in terms of the intensity of feudal and semi-feudal exploitation. This material condition is a formidable motive force for revolution. Are we "city dwellers" (your words, not mine) not supposed to mine this formidable force? I say that anyone in the Third World who ignores this class can not talk of starting any revolution.

Well, I cannot dispute your point, of course. Indeed, this was really Mao's fundamental contribution to revolutionary theory...standing far above all his other "achievements".

But as communists, we should realize what a "peasant-based" revolution leads to.

Mao called it "New Democracy" because that sounded better than bourgeois revolution.

But whatever you call it, it's still the same thing.

Keep in mind also that most of the people on this board are not "third world revolutionaries"...hence we are free to speak more bluntly about these things than those who are.

Plain speaking about peasant life does not "offend" a modern urban proletariat...they have largely the same opinions on the subject as we do!

In the Philippines, we take store by Marx when he said to the effect, "the thing in Germany for the proletarian revolution to start, a second edition of the peasant war is necessary".

I believe he was actually referring to France when he said that.

But either way, I think Marx was confused on this issue.

He seemed to think that the peasantry could be "mobilized" and "led" by a revolutionary proletariat to not only smash the remnants of feudalism but even to "go on" to "strangle capitalism in its cradle" and "create" the "lower stage of communism".

I think this view contradicts the main insight of historical materialism...that epochs of production must "run their course" before it is really possible to replace them with a new one.

The abolition of capitalism requires a level of consciousness far beyond what could reasonably be expected of a peasantry newly freed from the shackles of feudalism.

In Russia, for example, the peasants referred to Lenin as "Our New Czar"...and that was a compliment. To Russian peasants, the czar was "the little father" ("God" was the "big father") who, if he only knew, would "save his people" from the rapacious aristocracy. The Soviet decree that legalized "land to the peasantry" was enormously popular in the Russian countryside...and so was Lenin himself!

I can't imagine how peasants can depend on the vicissitudes of the weather. They depend on the weather, but not on its vicissitudes because they survive against those vicissitudes.

No, sometimes they don't survive. And even when they do, it's often a "pretty close call".

One historian actually dates the beginning of the Russian Revolution to 1896...when Russia had a "bad year" and famine stalked the countryside.

Every peasant in every country who reaches old age (say 50 or so) remembers "a bad year" or more than one. The threat of crop-failure and subsequent famine hangs over every peasant community...as we see in Africa today.

This is one of the material factors that engenders a "whole different outlook" among the peasantry.

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

Janus

12th December 2005, 21:43

[QUOTE]I have little doubt that most of the cadre during the "people's war" came from an urban background...perhaps entirely "petty bourgeois intellectuals".

Actually, most of the important cadres of the party were peasants, though from well-off peasant families similar to Mao's who could afford college education. This transference of the communist movement from the cities to the rural areas occured after the failure of the urban insurrections and Chiang's destruction of the urban communist infrastructure.

However, I agree that the rural masses are extremely constrained by ignorance, which causes them to accept dogma and other ideas without skepticism and reflection. But I believe that a peasant's concern in acquiring land is learned through experience because they equated land with wealth and overall well-being by observing the landholders themselves. This narrow and greedy view should be destroyed since it will only lead to the reinstitution of another landed aristocracy after the revolution as redstar said. This can only be achieved through cooperative or collective farming.

red_che

13th December 2005, 04:51

But as communists, we should realize what a "peasant-based" revolution leads to.

Mao called it "New Democracy" because that sounded better than bourgeois revolution.

As communists, we should realize the character of the peasant revolution that it is bourgeois in nature. Yes, that's true. But, more importantly, as communists, we should realize that this bourgeois nature of the peasant revolution must be led directly to a socialist revolution. That the phase of the revolution now is not to establish a capitalist society, but rather, a socialist society.

The New Democratic Revolution is of new character as compared to the old bourgeois revolutions. The New Democratic Revolution is led by the proletariat, with a socialist perspective. The peasants' revolutionary aspirations against their feudal and semi-feudal exploiters shall be led by the proletariat through a socialist revolution.

But either way, I think Marx was confused on this issue.

He seemed to think that the peasantry could be "mobilized" and "led" by a revolutionary proletariat to not only smash the remnants of feudalism but even to "go on" to "strangle capitalism in its cradle" and "create" the "lower stage of communism".

I think this view contradicts the main insight of historical materialism...that epochs of production must "run their course" before it is really possible to replace them with a new one.

Again, redstar, as I have previously said in this topic, there is no contradiction with historical materialism when these feudal/semi-feudal societies would establish socialism right after their seizure of political power.

Capitalism has already gone through its natural development and is on its stage of decay, so a socialist society must be established to replace this old, decadent capitalist society.

kurt

13th December 2005, 07:09

As communists, we should realize the character of the peasant revolution that it is bourgeois in nature. Yes, that's true. But, more importantly, as communists, we should realize that this bourgeois nature of the peasant revolution must be led directly to a socialist revolution. That the phase of the revolution now is not to establish a capitalist society, but rather, a socialist society.

You can assert that the bourgeois revolution "must" take on a socialist characteristic until you're blue in the face, it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Material conditions simply won't allow for it.

The New Democratic Revolution is of new character as compared to the old bourgeois revolutions. The New Democratic Revolution is led by the proletariat, with a socialist perspective. The peasants' revolutionary aspirations against their feudal and semi-feudal exploiters shall be led by the proletariat through a socialist revolution.
Didn't anyone tell you? The "New Democracy" led to capitalism. Why do you think a revolution with the same class characteristics as the "New Democracy" would turn out any different?

Again, redstar, as I have previously said in this topic, there is no contradiction with historical materialism when these feudal/semi-feudal societies would establish socialism right after their seizure of political power.
Well sure, if you by socialism you mean a party despotism, maybe even benevolent. I really hate the ambiguity of the term "socialism". This "socialism" will simply pave the way for capitalism.

Capitalism has already gone through its natural development and is on its stage of decay, so a socialist society must be established to replace this old, decadent capitalist society.
I think Lenin was saying the same thing at the beginning of the twentieth century. Don't make such bold assertions that you have no hope of proving.

redstar2000

13th December 2005, 07:11

Originally posted by red_che
The peasants' revolutionary aspirations against their feudal and semi-feudal exploiters shall be led by the proletariat through a socialist revolution.

Yes, that's the formula.

But it doesn't describe what actually happened.

You assert that "the next time" (Nepal?) it will "really happen that way"...but why should we accept that?

You assert that capitalism has "already run its course"...but why should we accept that either?

What you need to prove your case is a "third-world" socialism that works...that visibly begins the transition to communism.

Without that, the intelligent reader can only judge this controversy on the basis of what has already happened.

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

Led Zeppelin

13th December 2005, 07:55

The condition of being a wage slave is not exploitative? Wage at all is indicative of exploitation, let alone the fact that you are forced into it. Yes, a proletarian has to be a wage slave, yes, being a wage slave means you are exploited.

No, you are wrong, that is, if we go by Marxist economic theory.

Wage-slavery is not exploitative if you get "payed" the full value of your labor, of course this is not possible, since the economy cannot advance if this is done, a certain part has to be taken by the state.

This is not exploitative if the state is really Socialist, i.e., dictatorship of the proletariat.

In the case of the USSR this was not true, that is why I said that the workers there were exploited.

There's no such thing as a wage-slave under Socialist economy.

Yes there is, they get payed wages right? They die if they don't get payed those wages, right? That makes them a wage-slave.

You can make it "sound better" by saying that if the state is Socialist and the proletarians are still payed wages, it's not wage-slavery, I don't have time for such nonsense.

Yes, they have to have felt it to know it, being determines consciousness. If they know it, then they do little more than, as you put it, "understand what the word means." Unfortunately, understanding the meaning of a word is not nearly enough.

If we go by your logic Marx didn't "know it" either, since he didn't "feel it", neither did Lenin or Trotsky.

I can't take that seriously.

You're not. In fact, I'd say there's very few class conscious people here, let alone in the leftist movement as a whole.

So as a Communist I'm not class-conscious? Why is that, because I don't know everything about Marxist economics?

The above statement contradicts your previous statement:

Class consciousness isn't something you just fall into, nor is it something you learn out of a book. It's only going to arise at points where class struggle

You didn't finish that sentence btw, so how do I become class-conscious?

NovelGentry

13th December 2005, 08:29

Wage-slavery is not exploitative if you get "payed" the full value of your labor, of course this is not possible, since the economy cannot advance if this is done, a certain part has to be taken by the state.

If you are paid the full value of your labor then there is no point to wages. I don't know where you get anything but that from Marxist economics. Marx upholds wage as the necessary condition of exchange value for such a system, if such a system does not exist, wage is meaningless.

they get payed wages right?

No, they don't. They don't get paid anything.

They die if they don't get payed those wages, right? That makes them a wage-slave.

What a gross distortion of the terminology.

You can make it "sound better" by saying that if the state is Socialist and the proletarians are still payed wages, it's not wage-slavery, I don't have time for such nonsense.

It has nothing to do with making it sound better. Wage assumes the value of your labor is not yours, that is why you have to be paid a wage. The value of your labor belongs to someone else under a wage system, and the value which they pay you for your labor power is a completely separate and subjective value.

Under socialism you receive the value of your labor, the value of your labor power is never taken into account.

If we go by your logic Marx didn't "know it" either, since he didn't "feel it", neither did Lenin or Trotsky.

I'm not particularly sure of Lenin or Trotsky's background as wage workers, I'm well aware that Marx was a wage worker the brunt of his life. Marx was a journalist, like any other worker his labor power produced a certain value, and like any other worker in a capitalist system, he did not receive the value of his labor.

Certainly, it would be as difficult to argue that Marx was completely conscious as it would be any other proletarian in modern society. Certainly he was far more conscious than you or I.

So as a Communist I'm not class-conscious?

I don't see why being a communist automatically assume you're class conscious, no more than being a conservative automatically assumes you're property conscious, no more than being a human assumes you're humanist.

Why is that, because I don't know everything about Marxist economics?

There are plenty of class conscious people who have never heard of Marx at all. Don't be foolish. I don't know why you would assume being a scholar of Marx in any degree would automatically make you class conscious.

Knowledge is not the same as consciousness, if you can't grasp that, then I would suggest you look at basic philosophical ideas that explain exactly what it means to be conscious.

You didn't finish that sentence btw, so how do I become class-conscious?

If you're looking for ways to become more class conscious, you've already made a mistake.

Led Zeppelin

13th December 2005, 11:51

If you are paid the full value of your labor then there is no point to wages.

Yes, but you are not paid the full value of your labor, if you are paid the full value of your labor the proletarian state can no longer be sustained, or exist in the first place.

Marx upholds wage as the necessary condition of exchange value for such a system, if such a system does not exist, wage is meaningless.

If I recall correctly he included the Socialist system in that, if not (and that's a big if) then he contradicted himself, I'm sure you have read what he said about this himself when he argued against Lassalle.

No, they don't. They don't get paid anything.

Yes they do, they get paid equal wages.

What a gross distortion of the terminology.

That's basically what it comes down too.

Wage assumes the value of your labor is not yours, that is why you have to be paid a wage.

Of course it's not yours directly, it's yours indirectly in a Socialist state.

Explain how the proletariat can live if not by receiving wages.

I don't see why being a communist automatically assume you're class conscious

Because you understand the class struggle, and fight for your class.

If you're looking for ways to become more class conscious, you've already made a mistake.

Explain how people become class conscious, explain what being class conscious means according to you.

chilcru

13th December 2005, 12:54

RS2000:

"Indeed, this was really Mao's fundamental contribution to revolutionary theory...standing far above all his other "achievements"."

My reply:

Wrong. Bringing out the dual character of the peasantry and incorporating it into proletarian revolutionary theory is not Mao's fundamental contribution to revolutionary theory. It was Marx who first brought it up when, with the capitulation of the radical bourgeoisie to the forces of reaction in the 1848 Revolution, he was scanning the political horizon for possible allies of the proletariat in launching the prolet revolution. Hence his statement in a letter to Engels pointing to the necessity for a "second edition of the peasant war." Lenin raked the idea up from its being buried into oblivion by the reformism and tailendism of the Second International after he saw that revolutionary potential in Russian peasants in the 1905 Revolution and amplified it to demolish the position of Menshevikis who refused to see the wisdom of a peasant-worker alliance.

RS2000:

"But as communists, we should realize what a "peasant-based" revolution leads to.

Mao called it "New Democracy" because that sounded better than bourgeois revolution.

But whatever you call it, it's still the same thing."

My reply:

You made it appear as if Mao's use of the word "New Democracy" has no meaning other than that it "sounded better than bourgeois democracy". Wrong again.

Mao took off from where Lenin started in the postulation that the peasant revolution must be lead by the prolet if that revolution was to succeed and be brought promptly to socialist construction. But in this postulation, Mao and Lenin proceeded from different socio-historical conditions of their respective countries when they launched their revolutions and that difference is a clue to Mao's use of the word "New Democracy". Please figure out that difference. Its not simply a matter of "sounding better" and therein lies his contribution to clarifying the nature of proletarian revolution in the neo-colonies.

RS2000:
"Keep in mind also that most of the people on this board are not "third world revolutionaries"...hence we are free to speak more bluntly about these things than those who are."

My reply:

What are those quotation marks in third world revolutionaries for RS? I hope you are not demeaning the revolution in my country and the land that the NPA under the guidance of CPP is giving to peasants in areas under the organs of political power of workers and peasants. You have a right to speak. No one is taking that away from you. But if I should be blunt to a fellow "revolutionaryleftist", your bluntness must have at least a ring of truth based on social investigation and proletarian internationalism.

black magick hustla

13th December 2005, 13:08

Let me add a comment to ML's and Gent's discussion.

In any true communist/socialist society, nobody can get the full output of their labor. If this really happened, there will be different classes because obviously, different types of labor output different valued goods.

If people would get the full output of their labor in a socialist/communist society, there will be competition between the different factories/workplaces.

The only way someone would get the full output of their labor would be in an individualist anarchist system.

chilcru

13th December 2005, 13:20

comradekurt:

"You can assert that the bourgeois revolution "must" take on a socialist characteristic until you're blue in the face, it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Material conditions simply won't allow for it."

The fine formulation of the theory, ck, is this:

The peasant revolution is bourgeois in nature. It is not socialist or it does not have socialist characteristics. The role of the proletariat in such a revolution is to endow that revolution with a socialist perspective; that is, to bring that revolution promptly but gradually to socialist construction.

NovelGentry

13th December 2005, 17:48

Yes, but you are not paid the full value of your labor, if you are paid the full value of your labor the proletarian state can no longer be sustained, or exist in the first place.

Maybe you missed the larger point. Receiving the value of your labor, partial or whole, is different from receiving a wage based on the value of your labor power.

If I recall correctly he included the Socialist system in that, if not (and that's a big if) then he contradicted himself

Marx never particularly used the term socialism to define any such relations. Speaking of anything Marx said to be true for a "socialist system" as opposed to a "communist system" is a vagary. The difference between socialism and communism is not very strictly founded in their economic principles, Hempel points that out in his paper Principles of Communist Production and Distribution which is heavily based on Marx's economic suggestions.

Regardless, you're still not recognizing what wage is. Wage does not exist in socialism, it is contradictory to what socialism is, as there is no such thing as a labor market in socialism. Without a labor market, wage, aka: the price of labor power is meaningless.

Yes they do, they get paid equal wages.

See above. Equal wages would not imply socialism in any sense. Quite the contrary, wages, equal or not, implies a capitalist system.

Of course it's not yours directly, it's yours indirectly in a Socialist state.

Explain how the proletariat can live if not by receiving wages.

By receiving the value of their labor.

Because you understand the class struggle, and fight for your class.

Understanding class struggle may indeed be indicative of some level of class consciousness. I don't argue we all have some level. Obviously the first step to being conscious of anything is to be able to define the bounds of that and then present it's antagonists.

To claim that every Nazi soldier had aryan-consciousness would be utterly absurd, the idea that aryan consciousness could even exist is utterly absurd. Certainly they can explain to you what being Aryan entails, that's merely a matter of defining a word. From that you can then always point to what is anti-aryan, it is merely that which opposes what is aryan, thus racial integration can be called anti-aryan, and it is. Racial integration is anti-white, anti-black, etc.

So that is then "race struggle." You can then certainly fight for aryan purity or what have you, but please explain how that could ever determine aryan-consciousness, particularly when the concept of it is completely nonsensical to begin with.

Take a more simplified idea. Assume for a minute that you struggle against a wall, trying to "walk through it." You can understand the difference between yourself and the wall, defining each, etc. You can then struggle against it, and the wall struggles against you, at least in so far as you struggle to walk, it struggles to stand still. Does that require the wall to be conscious? I don't think so. Would it imply the wall is conscious? :lol:

Explain how people become class conscious, explain what being class conscious means according to you.

People could only rightfully be considered class conscious when the class is acting consciously. It's not very well up to you alone. How could one consider any individual to be group-conscious, it makes no sense. Class-consciousness by definition alone necessarily requires a conscious class. We can only be so class-conscious as our class is conscious. As of now I'd say that's moderately little in terms of what we've seen during some historical period. Early 1900s was a period where class consciousness could be considered at an all time high for the proletariat.

How people become class conscious would of course be in the same way that anyone becomes conscious of anything, by experiencing it. The problem is of course that it is very difficult for an individual to make any claim to experience class -- this isn't to say that they can't, but it is of course very dependent on the class, not the individual. Someone may experience class in terms of class oppression. Any proletarian will experience the struggle that is embodied by the proletariat, being conscious of it is a far greater task.

You see this daily. For example, there is no union where I work... why don't I start a union? The boss comes to a worker and wants them to implicate another worker in a "misdead." Why does the worker, including communists, fall in line? There's literally thousands of examples in every workplace where both communists and non-communists express exactly how un-class conscious they are.

When you start working, you will see it too.

redstar2000

13th December 2005, 17:58

Originally posted by chilcru
What are those quotation marks in third world revolutionaries for RS? I hope you are not demeaning the revolution in my country and the land that the NPA under the guidance of CPP is giving to peasants in areas under the organs of political power of workers and peasants.

Because while "third world revolutionaries" may sincerely believe that they are making a "socialist revolution", what will actually happen is that they will "clear the way" for the rise of modern capitalism in their countries.

This is what happened in Russia, China, et.al.

The obvious inference is that you can't "skip" an era of modern capitalism in the Philippines or anywhere else.

To be sure, you can erect an elaborate stage setting...lots of red flags and "Marxist" rhetoric.

But material reality prevails. Words cannot change that.

What's really happening in your country is 1789...and I wish you every success in your efforts.

If history is a reliable guide, your "socialism" will be a "transitional stage" between colonialism/feudalism and modern capitalism.

That's progress. :)

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

Floyce White

13th December 2005, 21:35

Redstar2000, I disagree with that approach for two reasons.

1. Property is not the relation of people to things. Ownership is the relation of violence between people with regards to things. Communist revolution is not a revolt of proletarians against capitalists for control of things, but a revolt of the dispossessed lower class against the ongoing violence of the possessing upper class.

Communist revolution is not specifically or uniquely a revolt of proletarians against capitalists. Communist revolution has been attempted many times in the past under many forms of class society. Notice that in today's developed capitalism, proletarian revolts are less successful than even the Servile Wars against the Roman Empire. There is no evidence to support the claim that the accumulation of machines has anything to do with the ability of the dispossessed to successfully revolt. This is a bourgeois prejudice that we should expunge from our movement.

As a person of capitalist-class family origins, Marx was biased in favor of the continued development of capitalism. Of course he would conclude that workers "can't" overthrow class society without being wage slaves for a long time, for generations, and from the point of the lower class, for ever.

2. Living in San Diego has given me a great deal of contact with Filipinos and I've become familiar with Philippine culture and history. Today is not 1789 for the Philippines. Their capitalist revolution occurred as two episodes of an independence movement: as a revolt against Spain in the 1890s, and as a revolt against Japanese occupation and for independence from America in the 1940s.

If I remember correctly, the English Revolution occurred in 1640 (and about the same time in Holland). The conditions in the Philippines are today far, far more permeated by commodity exchange than in 17th Century England. Subic Bay is the largest port in the world, and it is being converted into a commerical facility. The Manila Bay port is of major importance in Pacific trade. You know that the Philippines is a vast archipelago, so fishing and fish trade permeates the country. Commodity trade and seasonal employment long since replaced semi-vassal plantation relations. As hilly islands, there is relatively little arable land compared to the land-mass geography of China or Russia. Instead of a large semi-serf or semi-slave population, there are masses of rural shanty dwellers and squatters that feed an ongoing migration into suburban slums around Manila.

As a neocolony, there is a trememdous shortage of cash. This shortage of cash is the main limiting factor in rural development. However, there have been billions of dollars of wages for base workers and of remittances from Filipinos who joined the US Armed Forces, from war brides, and from their families who later emigrated to California. Toshiba radios, Singer sewing machines, and Coca Cola could be found in any small city by the mid-60s. By then, rural lower-class people largely had to get money to pay their school debts and to buy soap, fish, rice, and coconut oil (for cooking)--same as in the cities.

There is no question that capitalist economic relations has thoroughly dominated at least Luzon for an entire generation. Luzon is the head of the octopus of islands--and where the head goes, the tentacles are not far behind.

The fact that there continue to be rural guerrilla movements is not because the rural dwellers are peasants. No. It is because there is a large number of highly impoverished workers densely inhabiting a countryside of widely dispersed islands. The physical conditions are extremely favorable to rural guerrilla warfare. The ongoing weakness of local government, reliance on heavy repression from the Manila and provincial governments, and the cronyism of the comprador economy make for political conditions that are also extremely favorable to rural guerrilla warfare. This is not an invention of modern times but part of the long history of colonial subjugation of the many different pre-feudal cultures of the islands.

To sum up, the thesis is not just wrong, but it is wrong as stated.

redstar2000

14th December 2005, 04:35

Originally posted by Floyce White
Communist revolution is not a revolt of proletarians against capitalists for control of things, but a revolt of the dispossessed lower class against the ongoing violence of the possessing upper class.

Communist revolution is not specifically or uniquely a revolt of proletarians against capitalists. Communist revolution has been attempted many times in the past under many forms of class society.

I think it unlikely that a fruitful exchange is possible between us over these matters.

To me, your approach sounds totally a-historical.

And idealist as well...as if people could "have communism" pretty much anywhere and any time they "really wanted to".

You have every right to your views, of course...but I cannot see any useful outcome of your perspective.

There is no evidence to support the claim that the accumulation of machines has anything to do with the ability of the dispossessed to successfully revolt.

Those machines do not determine the success or failure of rebellion. They determine what kind of society you will end up with after the rebellion.

The more and better machines that you have (or can learn to build), the better things are going to turn out.

Today is not 1789 for the Philippines.

As I understand it, Philippine political life continues to be dominated by a few families that own the bulk of the useful agricultural land in that unhappy country.

There is a native capitalist class, but it is entirely subordinate to imperialism.

If the Maoists win in the Philippines, what they will do is smash the political and economic power of both the big landowning families and the imperialist flunkies...and, hopefully, the utterly reactionary Catholic Church.

Afterwards, they will do exactly what the more advanced European capitalist countries did in the 19th century.

They will build schools for nearly all the kids. They will build decent homes for nearly everyone to live in. Clean water will be provided...and electricity. Millions of people there will actually see a doctor for the first time in their lives.

The life expectancy will sharply rise.

And they will, if they are sensible, build up their own economy...learning to make modern products for themselves instead of trying to live on the occasional handouts of imperialism.

After a few decades, the Maoists will naturally "evolve" into a new modern capitalist class ready to take its place in the world market as a real player...instead of a pitiful neo-colonial dependency.

That's what 1789 actually means in today's world.

You are free to reject this thesis...but if you do, then you have to explain why countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., didn't "go on" and "build communism"...since you evidently think that's always "possible".

Are you going to "fall back" on a "devil theory" of history? The people who led those revolutions were "really all rotten bastards" from the beginning???

Or you can try the excuse "imperialism was just too strong"...an astonishing thesis since all those regimes and parties engendered capitalism from within -- and not as a consequence of imperialist conquest.

I don't think that these are even remotely credible alternatives to my thesis.

But some people like them.

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

Morpheus

14th December 2005, 04:46

Material conditions simply won't allow for it.

Why not?

red_che

14th December 2005, 04:52

Because while "third world revolutionaries" may sincerely believe that they are making a "socialist revolution", what will actually happen is that they will "clear the way" for the rise of modern capitalism in their countries.

Redstar, you can't speak of what they believe unless you know or have been through them. I suggest you do alot more of investigation before you make any conclusions.

I can see the big difference between the Philippine revolution now than the previous peasant revolutions in history. Theirs, as of this moment, is I can say a new democratic revolution which has in its embryo a socialist transformation. What lacks them, maybe, is the modern industry that they need in order to build the foundations of socialism. Aside from that, even if they are still waging a democratic revolution, that is, a peasant revolution, they have a greater degree of understanding of the bourgeois revolution and a socialist revolution. They know what to do. They were just gaining strength in order to complete their seizure of political power and start right away their socialist construction and revolution.

Their democratic revolution have long been started. That was in 1898 against the Spanish colonization and shortly afterwards against American Imperialism. Their revolution today is just a continuation of that revolution, but with a different character and perspective. If the leaders of their old revolution were bourgeois liberals, now, it is the proletariat who takes the lead. If their 1898 revolution aspires of mere democratic reforms, now, theirs have a socialist perspective.

Their conditions of 18th century is far more different than today. Do not make them so very backwards as if they don't have tha capability to move forward. Don't be arrogant. Again, you should investigate first.

kurt

14th December 2005, 05:52

I can see the big difference between the Philippine revolution now than the previous peasant revolutions in history. Theirs, as of this moment, is I can say a new democratic revolution which has in its embryo a socialist transformation.
We know what happened with the last "new democratic" revolution; Capitalism!

What lacks them, maybe, is the modern industry that they need in order to build the foundations of socialism.

That's one of the main tenets of marxism and historical materialism. You can't build a certain society without the necessary material conditions. In this case, you can't build communism without a substantially developed capitalist mode of production.

Their conditions of 18th century is far more different than today. Do not make them so very backwards as if they don't have tha capability to move forward.
Their material conditions are very similar to that of China in the early-mid 20th century. The Phillipines is primarily an agricultural nation under the dominance of foreign imperialism.

They do have the capability to move forward, to capitalism.

Don't be arrogant. Again, you should investigate first.
Perhaps the weight of empirical evidence has no use in a debate with a maoist.

kurt

14th December 2005, 05:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:46 PM

Material conditions simply won't allow for it.

Why not?
Well, I think history has shown us what happens when peasant based societies try to skip over capitalism and head into communism. What was the result? Capitalism.

Unless of course your definition of "socialism" is of the leninist variety. The term socialism is pretty ambiguous, I don't really like the term. No one clarifies what they mean by "socialism".

red_che

14th December 2005, 08:07

You are free to reject this thesis...but if you do, then you have to explain why countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., didn't "go on" and "build communism"...since you evidently think that's always "possible".

Modern Revisionism is what brought these countries back to Capitalism. The foundations for socialism was built, and were already prospering, i.e., modern industry.

I'll ask you, what is the difference between capitalism and socialism?

Their difference lies in the relations of production. In capitalism, it is the wage slavery, usurpation of surplus value and accumulation of capital that determines the capitalist relations. In socialism, it is the smashing of these relations. Socialism is not yet communism. It is just the first stage of communism. It is that transition to communism. If you can't understand this basic difference, then you cannot understand what we are talking here and this discussion cannot go anywhere else.

You can't build a certain society without the necessary material conditions...

No one clarifies what they mean by "socialism".

I have stated here many times before that Socialism is the transition to communism. Now, I see why you don't understand when I mean the condition is already in place. I'll ask you, what is that condition you are looking for to establish socialism? Is it modern industry? Is it the abolition of bourgeois property? Is it abolition of the bourgeois state? Weren't these all done by the Soviets? By the Chinese?

If you say the abolition of classes, then that would take more time and as such, societies need to go through a revolutionary transformation of society, a reviolutionary transition, a socialist construction. Capitalism can't be wiped out in just one night. The only condition needed to wage a socialist revolution and socialist construction is the modern industry and the leadership of the proletariat. That's all. Above those, or anything else other than those, nothing can be achieved.

In this case, you can't build communism without a substantially developed capitalist mode of production.

I ask you, can you explain in detail what a "substantially developed capitalist mode of production is"?

From what I know, capitalism today had already passed through that. In fact, it already reached that stage of monopoly capitalism. Now, if societies, as you were suggesting, still needs to go through that same process, then they are simply repeating what the US has gone through, the UK, France, Germany, etc. If that is the condition you are wanting to, I don't think the proletarian movement can move forward ever. And certainly, that is not a good historical materialist outlook, not historical materialist actually.

chilcru

14th December 2005, 14:19

Floyce White:

"Living in San Diego has given me a great deal of contact with Filipinos and I've become familiar with Philippine culture and history. Today is not 1789 for the Philippines. Their capitalist revolution occurred as two episodes of an independence movement: as a revolt against Spain in the 1890s, and as a revolt against Japanese occupation and for independence from America in the 1940s.

If I remember correctly, the English Revolution occurred in 1640 (and about the same time in Holland). The conditions in the Philippines are today far, far more permeated by commodity exchange than in 17th Century England. Subic Bay is the largest port in the world, and it is being converted into a commerical facility. The Manila Bay port is of major importance in Pacific trade. You know that the Philippines is a vast archipelago, so fishing and fish trade permeates the country. Commodity trade and seasonal employment long since replaced semi-vassal plantation relations. As hilly islands, there is relatively little arable land compared to the land-mass geography of China or Russia. Instead of a large semi-serf or semi-slave population, there are masses of rural shanty dwellers and squatters that feed an ongoing migration into suburban slums around Manila.

As a neocolony, there is a trememdous shortage of cash. This shortage of cash is the main limiting factor in rural development. However, there have been billions of dollars of wages for base workers and of remittances from Filipinos who joined the US Armed Forces, from war brides, and from their families who later emigrated to California. Toshiba radios, Singer sewing machines, and Coca Cola could be found in any small city by the mid-60s. By then, rural lower-class people largely had to get money to pay their school debts and to buy soap, fish, rice, and coconut oil (for cooking)--same as in the cities.

There is no question that capitalist economic relations has thoroughly dominated at least Luzon for an entire generation. Luzon is the head of the octopus of islands--and where the head goes, the tentacles are not far behind.

The fact that there continue to be rural guerrilla movements is not because the rural dwellers are peasants. No. It is because there is a large number of highly impoverished workers densely inhabiting a countryside of widely dispersed islands. The physical conditions are extremely favorable to rural guerrilla warfare. The ongoing weakness of local government, reliance on heavy repression from the Manila and provincial governments, and the cronyism of the comprador economy make for political conditions that are also extremely favorable to rural guerrilla warfare. This is not an invention of modern times but part of the long history of colonial subjugation of the many different pre-feudal cultures of the islands.

To sum up, the thesis is not just wrong, but it is wrong as stated."

My reply:

We very much welcome proletarian internationalists of fraternal parties and allied peoples' movements who make a sincere effort to better understand our country in order to help advance the People's Democratic Revolution we are waging. But I hope you are not here trying to impose on us another Western history of the Philippines bedecked with leftist jargon. Especially if that attempt at explaining our history and conditions is full of errors and cloaks those errors with the arrogant posture of someone who knows better.

Floyce White

14th December 2005, 14:20

redstar2000: "I think it unlikely that a fruitful exchange is possible between us over these matters."

To the degree that we reject leftism, we have the possibility for comradely discourse.

redstar2000: "...as if people could 'have communism' pretty much anywhere and any time they 'really wanted to.'"

Exactly! That's my point! There's no lack of understanding between us.

redstar2000: "...I cannot see any useful outcome of your perspective."

I do. This is the theory in support of the practice of communist revolution now, everywhere in the world, instead of the "Marxist" two-stage theory that fights for capitalism as "the only thing possible."

redstar2000: "Those machines do not determine the success or failure of rebellion. They determine what kind of society you will end up with after the rebellion."

There is a very large land area covered by asphalt and concrete. Satellite photographs of metropolitan areas show desertification as if a new ice age. These surfaces must be fractured to gravel, and new topsoil must be developed so that vegetation can cover the barren surfaces. This will eliminate the microclimate of warmer and dustier air around cities. The billions of hours of labor that went into roads, parking lots, and cars must be destroyed with billions of hours of labor. This is a major task of the new society, thanks to capitalism.

redstar2000: "The more and better machines that you have (or can learn to build), the better things are going to turn out."

Always, "better" for whom? Better for companies that sell fuel, asphalt, concrete, automobiles, steel, aluminum, glass, and plastics. Is it not clear that a world of garbage-in-the-making is a world of garbage? In the garbage world, people treat each other like trash.

To continue the idea, rail transport was invented and developed before the system of paved automobile roads. I do not idealize the railroads--they act in capitalism as does any business. I just point out that the development of single-family housing, cars, roads, and the items around them, are due to particular business interests and not because these machines are in any way "better" than others--or "better" than the absence of these machines.

redstar2000: "After a few decades, the Maoists will naturally 'evolve' into a new modern capitalist class ready to take its place in the world market as a real player...instead of a pitiful neo-colonial dependency.

"That's what 1789 actually means in today's world."

Argentina, Chile, South Africa, etc., developed into minor imperialisms. They remain in a semi-colonial relation to the major imperialist homelands. Fact is, the biggest capitalists will always have a limiting power over the smaller capitalists.

Temporarily, the big four Anglo-American oil companies have to watch smaller competitors gain on them. In the long run, they will purchase the Russian and French competition, and they will invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, and take possession of the nationalized oil companies they are prevented from buying. There is no question how it will turn out. These are tomorrow's Iraqs.

The "pitiful neo-colonial dependency" continues as before.

redstar2000: "You are free to reject this thesis...but if you do, then you have to explain why countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., didn't 'go on' and 'build communism'...since you evidently think that's always 'possible.'"

comradekurt: "The term 'socialism' is pretty ambiguous, I don't really like the term. No one clarifies what they mean by 'socialism.'"

Socialism is a form of capitalism. The capitalist regimes in the USSR, People's Repubic of China, Vietnam, and Cuba could not possibly "go on" to anything but continued capitalism in one form or another. The only ones who can make the communist revolution, the only ones who can build communism, are the dispossessed themselves. For petty-bourgeois "leaders" to organize working-class activists to fight for socialist capitalism is co-option and misorganization of the struggle.

The Russian communist movement developed to the point of revolt, but was co-opted and then pacified by the Bolsheviks. At the same time, similarly co-opted workers' uprisings were crushed in Hungary and Bavaria. The Chinese communist revolution developed to the point of revolt, but was crushed in the late '20s. A generation later, the Chinese communist movement almost reached the point of revolt but was pacified. The movement of the working class never organized to the point of initiating communist revolution in Vietnam and Cuba. The mass takeover movement in Chile was crushed by the Pinochet regime. One generation later, a similar takeover movement in Argentina never developed to the point of revolt. They fought in many ways, influenced by many theories, and lost for many reasons.

redstar2000: "Are you going to 'fall back' on a 'devil theory' of history? The people who led those revolutions were 'really all rotten bastards' from the beginning???"

"Led?" The method of "leaders" and "followers" is not the method of workers' discussion, unity, self-organization, and self-mobilization. Fact is, this method was used in these movements, and it "led" to the same goal that "leaders" always "lead" to: the continuation of class society. One reason that all of these uprisings were co-opted, pacified, or crushed is because they did not reject methods and forms of rule as a way to overthrow the system of rulers and ruled. Another reason that all of these uprisings were defeated is that capitalism rules through co-opters, pacifiers, and crushers who constantly struggle against working-class rebellion in every form. As rebellion becomes more organized and unified, those who put it down use more and more resources, and counterrevolution becomes sophisticated and manifold.

To win at rebellion, we must take the next act before the counterrevolution can fully react to the previous act. We must also act in many cities at once, successfully organize in the military--in other words, we must do what prior uprisings did not. We must learn from the defeats of the past. If we "really want" to have communism, we are going to have to understand history and theory a lot better than the level of discussion on this message board.

Floyce White

14th December 2005, 14:46

Chilcru, you made a post while I was writing my prior post. I respond now.

chilcru: "But I hope you are not here trying to impose on us another Western history of the Philippines bedecked with leftist jargon. Especially if that attempt at explaining our history and conditions is full of errors and makes up for those errors with the arrogance that they know better than us."

Fellow poor people are the source of all knowledge--not the interpretations of "authorities." I have opinions as do workers anywhere. I make my arguments using some of the information available to me that I think might be pertinent. Living in the US does not automatically make any of my arguments true or false, just as living in the Philippines does not automatically make anyone's arguments there true or false. In our ongoing discussion, we overcome the shortcomings of isolation, miseducation, and lack of experience of one person or small groups here and there.

It would be ridiculous for me to try to write the full and complete history of California, much less the Philippines. (But there are a lot of paternalistic leftists who do.) Among comrades, there is no issue of "us" and "them." Among comrades, it is a matter of listening and learning from the knowledge of others, and speaking in your turn.

chilcru

14th December 2005, 14:52

RedStar2000:

"I think this view contradicts the main insight of historical materialism...that epochs of production must "run their course" before it is really possible to replace them with a new one."

My reply:

What does this mean, RS? Does it mean that the modes of exploitation of that epoch of production must first bleed the direct producers dry to the most extreme degree before workers are to launch their revolution? In the meantime that those modes of exploitation have not yet "run their course", let's sip beer and suffer gracefully those modes of exploitation?

Redstar2000:

"The abolition of capitalism requires a level of consciousness far beyond what could reasonably be expected of a peasantry newly freed from the shackles of feudalism."

In the semi-feudal, semi-colonial Philippines, after the seizure of political power by the workers and peasants, there is no need to abolish capitalism because there is no capitalism to speak of.

chilcru

14th December 2005, 15:10

Floyce White:

"Fellow poor people are the source of all knowledge--not the interpretations of "authorities." I have opinions as do workers anywhere. I make my arguments using some of the information available to me that I think might be pertinent. Living in the US does not automatically make any of my arguments true or false, just as living in the Philippines does not automatically make anyone's arguments there true or false. In our ongoing discussion, we overcome the shortcomings of isolation, miseducation, and lack of experience of one person or small groups here and there.

It would be ridiculous for me to try to write the full and complete history of California, much less the Philippines. (But there are a lot of paternalistic leftists who do.) Among comrades, there is no issue of "us" and "them." Among comrades, it is a matter of listening and learning from the knowledge of others, and speaking in your turn."

My reply:

I'm glad to know that you are not trying to be ridiculous trying to write a Western history of my country. As I've said, we welcome very much proletarian internationalists who make a sincere effort to understand our country and our revolution. As long as the attempt at understanding is within the spirit of proletarian internationalism, we are more than willing to listen. You can take that statement to the bank.

About your opinions about my country, well, as you can see, I live here among the poor Filipino people whose sufferings are "the source of all kinowledge". In living with the masses, I get my knowledge about their conditions and aspirations straight from them. Can "authorities" living in California beat that?

redstar2000

14th December 2005, 16:05

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)Modern Revisionism is what brought these countries back to Capitalism. The foundations for socialism were built, and were already prospering, i.e., modern industry.[/b]

Do you see the contradiction in what you just wrote?

If the material "foundations for socialism" were already "built", how is it that "Modern Revisionism" emerged?

This is a question that the Maoist paradigm cannot answer without falling into a swamp of confusion.

Whereas to a Marxist, it's a perfectly natural development.

What the Maoists call "Modern Revisionism" -- that is, capitalist ideology dressed in "Marxist" costumes -- emerges naturally from the creation of the material foundations of modern capitalism.

The Maoist party leadership functions exactly like a corporate "board of directors" and, over time, develops the same ideology.

That's what will happen if the Maoists win in the Philippines...or anyplace else.

Not because Maoists are "born in sin" or just "no-good rotten bastards" or anything silly like that.

It's because of a fundamental "axiom" of historical materialism...you are what you do.

Put that "fire-breathing" young revolutionary into a plush chair in a corner office at the "Ministry of the People's Economy" and watch him change into a boss!

His kids will be even worse. Raised in privilege, they will assume that "rule is their birthright"...just like rich kids in capitalist society.

Maoists imagine that there "must be a way" to "make sure" that this process "won't happen" the "next time".

That "correct ideas" can prevail over material reality.

A position that they actually share, perhaps surprisingly, with the "anti-left left".

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)....as if people could "have communism" pretty much anywhere and any time they "really wanted to."[/b]

Floyce [email protected]
Exactly! That's my point!

Maoists would say "build socialism" rather than "have communism"...but otherwise it's the same view.

We can do "whatever we want" if we "really want to badly enough".

I can only "reply" to these various versions of "the triumph of the will" by remarking that they've lost even a remote connection to Marxism.

Of course such views may be "emotionally rewarding"...perhaps why the capitalists have their own versions:

Under capitalism, you can be anything you want!

People undertaking what they perceive to be "difficult tasks" will understandably exaggerate the "plasticity" of material reality....otherwise, they might just feel "overwhelmed".

Well, that's how things go.

Floyce White
There is a very large land area covered by asphalt and concrete....The billions of hours of labor that went into roads, parking lots, and cars must be destroyed with billions of hours of labor....Is it not clear that a world of garbage-in-the-making is a world of garbage?...I just point out that the development of single-family housing, cars, roads, and the items around them, are due to particular business interests and not because these machines are in any way "better" than others--or "better" than the absence of these machines.

This is really a "different kind" of topic -- suggesting that communist societies will actively dismantle much or even most of the urban "infrastructure" that presently exists.

I have rather different expectations. I do think that a good deal of technologically obsolete infrastructure will be torn down or just abandoned.

But I expect it to be replaced by newer and still more advanced technology.

So we'll see how things turn out.

For petty-bourgeois "leaders" to organize working-class activists to fight for socialist capitalism is co-option and misorganization of the struggle.

Sorry, but that's definitely a "devil theory" of history. If only those "evil petty-bourgeois leaders" hadn't been on the scene, everything would have "worked out fine".

And not really that different from the Maoist "explanations"...like "it was that bastard Khrushchev" or "it was that bastard Deng" and so on.

If we "really want" to have communism, we are going to have to understand history and theory a lot better than the level of discussion on this message board.

I'm sorry we have "let you down".

But I've seen a fair number of political message boards over the last three years...and I'm not "ashamed" of our "track record".

People have a marked tendency to evaluate political message boards on the degree of receptivity to their own ideas...which is certainly one reason that I think this board is outstandingly superior to "all the others".

You may perhaps be justified in feeling otherwise.

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

black magick hustla

14th December 2005, 16:29

Originally posted by comradekurt+Dec 14 2005, 05:56 AM--> (comradekurt @ Dec 14 2005, 05:56 AM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 08:46 PM

Material conditions simply won't allow for it.

Why not?
[/b]

Well, I think history has shown us what happens when peasant based societies try to skip over capitalism and head into communism. What was the result? Capitalism.

I think it has more to do with the fact that all the past "socialist" followed the leninist paradigm.

I know my fair bit of mexican anarchist history, and i can assure you that the most important sectors that fought for self management after the 1930s(before, there was the Casa del Obrero, the PLM and the CGT in Tampico) where peasants. The usual proletarians in Mexico most of the time allied with the liberal bourgeois and petitborgeois.

the jaramillistas, zapatistas, magonistas.... all of them fought for self management of their plantations while the average mexican proletarian was submerged in liberalism.

infidel

14th December 2005, 18:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:07 AM
A short question to you: how do you think about the principle of proletarian dictatorship and do you support it?
Well the answer is, though in a classified society we are talking about the dictatorship of proletariet, in a society where production and it's sources are owned by the working class there exists no proletariet at all. Here the "Dictatorship of proletariet" should be replaced by the word of "self governance of community". There should be complete and absolute freedom and scope for descission making for all irrespective of there past history. And that should be implemented by allowing the mass in every aspects of life. The political and economic descissions should be taken by total mass involvement. Otherwise romantic dictatorship of proletariet would be converted to dictatorship of a group of corrupt and brutal fellows, as it happend in maximum of the so called socialist countries.Like in peoples republic of China. The trade unions got dissolved there, and the Chinese is selecting the party cadres from third and fourth generations of the original revolutionaries.Which is nothing but a kind of familly rule.Here in the name of dictatorship of the proletariet, dictatorship of a vested interest is reigning. it's a form of state capitalism instead of a private one. But far away from the real socialism. Actually Without absolute freedom equality means just nothing and not at all possible. So in a changed and classless society there can be only total and absolute freedom for all if socialism is desired at the end.

Floyce White

14th December 2005, 20:30

infidel: "...total and absolute freedom for all..."

This is not a useful formulation. The ideal of freedom for a few exists because of the reality of slavery for the many. To yearn to be free is proof that there is something to be free from. Freedom cannot be total and absolute, but only one half of the equation of misery and exploitation. Freedom for who to do what to who? When both employer and employee are for it, it must be a condition of life under capitalism, not communism.

chilcru: "In living with the masses, I get my knowledge about their conditions and aspirations straight from them. Can 'authorities' living in California beat that?"

If I made errors or omissions in my examples of money economy in the Philippines, please point them out. Or perhaps you can point out how there could possibly be peasants without vassalage, a royalty, special rights for town citizens, and other well-known features of feudal castification.

As you can see on this message board, people who live in the same country, all with the same thorough knowledge of their situation, all with experience in struggle, make very different analyses. Some of the conclusions must be horribly wrong. Merely having first-hand knowledge of the situation does not in any way imply being a lower-class person, having a lower-class outlook, or having made an honest analysis. Even then, our best analysis can be proven wrong by actual events, or by discussion of theory, or both.

redstar2000: "I can only 'reply' to these various versions of 'the triumph of the will' by remarking that they've lost even a remote connection to Marxism."

I am not a "Marxist." The many positions Marx advocated are not part of a unified whole. Supporting or opposing some has no relation to the others. And it is not necessary for me to validate my views through reference to a bourgeois patron or by pleading conformity with the opinions of an authority figure.

"Triumph of the will?" It would be facile for anyone to reduce revolution to a matter of manipulating individuals and masses through propaganda about wants and needs. If you have read my articles, you know that I see it as a matter of organizing struggle and solidarity.

redstar2000: "People undertaking what they perceive to be 'difficult tasks' will understandably exaggerate the 'plasticity' of material reality...otherwise, they might just feel 'overwhelmed.'

Is that so? Maybe these people weren't public communists who wrote and passed out 6000 revolutionary communist leaflets during war hysteria.

redstar2000: "Sorry, but that's definitely a 'devil theory' of history. If only those 'evil petty-bourgeois leaders' hadn't been on the scene, everything would have 'worked out fine.'"

As I said earlier in this thread (see Page 3): "Thousands of petty bourgeois--and collectively, tens of millions--involve themselves in the organizations and movement of the working class in every country and in every generation. This is not an unfathomable collage of individual personal narratives. This is not a matter of the 'good character' or 'lack of prejudice' of individuals. This is not workers and capitalists hand-in-hand for 'human issues' that 'transcend class.' It is a mass phenomenon that goes to the very core of petty-bourgeois being. Petty capitalists are capitalists. Being capitalist means using others to accumulate property and therefore more power over others. Capitalists intervene in workers' organization to co-opt them to fight en masse for bourgeois causes. It is Pollyanna to play it off as a few 'active supporters' here and there."

Petty-bourgeois "leaders" will be on the scene no matter what. We shouldn't be so negligent as to allow them into workers' organizations.

Here I add, it is fatalism to say that material conditions are to blame for the failure of uprisings. Those who rebelled deserve the credit for rebelling and deserve the blame for not preparing adequately. People are responsible for what they do.

How is it possible for serfs to obey the orders of feudal lords, but impossible to disobey? Those famous "bodies of armed men" were there because disobedience was not only possible but occurred very often and in many ways. I am certain that you agree with me that class struggle was an ongoing fact of life in previous forms of class society. If class struggle was an ongoing fact of life, so too was the possibility of class victory by the poor. If not, what were they struggling for? Did you disagree with my articles where I argued against the concepts of repossession for the dispossessed, or of "lower class" as meaning "possessing less?"

I'll do you one better. To say that there was not successful communist revolution in the past so it "proves" there could not have been--this is intellectual laziness, a cop out, and a prejudice for one's own culture. Marx and other writers deserve the blame for this. We are not responsible for Marx's opinions and there is no reason for us to repeat it. Marx was a fine fellow and the last and greatest classical economist, but he was just plain wrong to imply that billions of people were unable to recognize that property is violence until his time.

redstar2000: "I'm sorry we have 'let you down.'"

Ha ha! I would rephrase it, but your answer was so funny.

Perhaps what I should have said is that a future workers' party will discuss issues with much greater breadth and depth than we now can. If we strive for that kind of workers' party, we must be more thoughtful than tit-for-tat replies and routine recitation of quotes.

kurt

14th December 2005, 22:25

I have stated here many times before that Socialism is the transition to communism.
That's a pretty vague statement. Not that I expected the real answer, maoists like to skip over the party despotism part.

Now, I see why you don't understand when I mean the condition is already in place. I'll ask you, what is that condition you are looking for to establish socialism? Is it modern industry? Is it the abolition of bourgeois property? Is it abolition of the bourgeois state? Weren't these all done by the Soviets? By the Chinese?
No one knows the exact material conditions for communism, but we surely know when they are not in place. The Phillipines isn't ready yet.

The only condition needed to wage a socialist revolution and socialist construction is the modern industry and the leadership of the proletariat. That's all. Above those, or anything else other than those, nothing can be achieved.

Then why do you try to "steer" an agricultural country with a small modern industry towards communism? No doubt Maoists are good at making revolution. You just seem to think you're making a communist revolution when it's really a bourgeois revolution masked in red rhetoric.

From what I know, capitalism today had already passed through that. In fact, it already reached that stage of monopoly capitalism.
Lenin said the same thing in the early twentieth century. I think I'll pass on this "expert" analysis.

Now, if societies, as you were suggesting, still needs to go through that same process, then they are simply repeating what the US has gone through, the UK, France, Germany, etc.
China, Vietnam, Laos, Russia to name a few have all developed into capitalist nations during the course of the twentieth century.

If that is the condition you are wanting to, I don't think the proletarian movement can move forward ever.
I'm sorry if your revolutionary "zeal" has clouded your capacity for sound judgement. The conditions I "want" have nothing to do with anything.

And certainly, that is not a good historical materialist outlook, not historical materialist actually.
This is exactly what historical materialism is about. Historical materialism allows no room for revolutionary "will", or "great leaders" with the "correct line". The only thing it does have room for is cold, hard material reality. Sorry if that gets in the way of your red flag.

I am not a "Marxist." The many positions Marx advocated are not part of a unified whole. Supporting or opposing some has no relation to the others. And it is not necessary for me to validate my views through reference to a bourgeois patron or by pleading conformity with the opinions of an authority figure.
That's not what a marxist is.

redstar2000

15th December 2005, 00:48

Originally posted by Floyce White
I am not a "Marxist."

Of course you aren't.

Neither are the Maoists, though they persist in claiming otherwise. :lol:

Petty-bourgeois "leaders" will be on the scene no matter what. We shouldn't be so negligent as to allow them into workers' organizations.

I believe there are already some small groups that actually follow Marx's recommendation of "workers only".

I think this may be a significant development...especially if it spreads to other advanced capitalist countries.

At the moment, it's "too soon to say".

Here I add, it is fatalism to say that material conditions are to blame for the failure of uprisings. Those who rebelled deserve the credit for rebelling and deserve the blame for not preparing adequately. People are responsible for what they do.

The word "fatalism" derives from the myth that there is such a thing as "Fate"...which "determines what happens".

To use the word now is archaic.

To suggest that "people are responsible for what they do" ignores both the material constraints and the historical constraints under which they "decide" what to "do".

We "make our own history" but "not under conditions of our own choosing", as Marx pointed out.

To expect peasants to "choose communism" because it's "the right choice" ignores everything about the material realities of peasant life...and their resultant "world-view".

If class struggle [under feudalism] was an ongoing fact of life, so too was the possibility of class victory by the poor.

I never denied it. I simply pointed out that in those historical cases where peasant insurrections were successful, the leaders of the rebellion promptly established themselves as a new landed aristocracy.

Put it this way: a predominately agrarian society is, of necessity, despotic...there's simply no other way for such a society to survive the inevitable uncertainties of agricultural production on a long-term basis.

To say that there was not successful communist revolution in the past so it "proves" there could not have been--this is intellectual laziness, a cop out, and a prejudice for one's own culture.

Yes, I am truly a "bad boy". :lol:

Historical materialism is deterministic...and that doesn't bother me at all -- though quite a few folks seem very upset by it. They think it "violates" their "free will"...or some such metaphysical objection.

And of course I am "prejudiced" in favor of "my culture". As bad as life can be under the despotism of capital, it is obviously far superior to all those forms of "culture" (class society) that preceded it.

I have never "bought into" the myth of a Golden Age...that there was some time in the past where humans lived in "egalitarian bliss".

On the contrary, the past was even more horrible than now...and by a wide margin at that!

As an even a passing acquaintance with human history reveals.

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

enigma2517

15th December 2005, 02:58

Quick comment:

Being young and feeble minded I find this myriad of arguments sometimes hard to read and comprehend. That being said, the amount that I do understand is nothing short of mind blowing. A materialist conception of reality has answered so many questions for me. I look at the world much differently now than I did 2 years ago.

This board isn't perfect, but its pretty damn close. I'd have to agree with Redstar on this one, a large amount of very important and revealing discussions take place here. The only way they're going to get better is if we keep having more of them. This is an important start.

Sorry if I'm spilling over too much of this emotional crap ;)

I enjoy this forum.

red_che

15th December 2005, 04:09

If the material "foundations for socialism" were already "built", how is it that "Modern Revisionism" emerged?

So, you mean that when socialist construction is undergoing, the bourgeoisie were already extinct?

The paradigm of your thought is so limited that you don't see the relations of things and their movements. It's as if when one system emerged, the old systems would already have evaporated out of the world.

Remember redstar that when capitalism emerged, feudalism wasn't wiped out completely. Until now, feudalism still exist, though not dominant. That is the same when socialism emerges, capitalism will not become extinct right away. Capitalists (the bourgeoisie) will try to get back power, and with the help of these modern revisionists, they were victorious in Russia and China, and others. They succeded because they turned their backs on socialism and, instead, restored capitalist mode of production. That was the reason.

And that is a lesson learned for the future socialist societies and movements. Contradictions will not end until the complete annihilation of classes and class contradictions. Socialism isn't yet communism. Classes still exist and so do class contradictions. This is a fact that you can't understand because of the narrowness of your materialism.

No one knows the exact material conditions for communism, but we surely know when they are not in place.

Do you actually know what you wrote here? You are contradicting yourself.

You don't know what the condition for communism is, but you know when they are not in place. That's absurd! I suggest you study dialectical and historical materialism first, before making any such mindless comments, okay!

kurt

15th December 2005, 04:16

Do you actually know what you wrote here? You are contradicting yourself.
Not at all. I know in the 15th century, the material conditions for communism were not in place. Just because I know this, does not mean that I have to know when they will be in place.

You don't know what the condition for communism is, but you know when they are not in place. That's absurd! I suggest you study dialectical and historical materialism first, before making any such mindless comments, okay!
Unfortunately, I'm not a master of the dialectic like you comrade. Smoke and mirrors isn't my style, I prefer a material analysis over an idealistic view such as yours.

red_che

15th December 2005, 04:50

Not at all. I know in the 15th century, the material conditions for communism were not in place. Just because I know this, does not mean that I have to know when they will be in place.

Great. We are talking here of the present condition and you are referring to several centuries ago. How timely you are. :D

I prefer a material analysis...

You say you prefer material analysis, yet you don't know the material basis for communism. My goodness! :unsure:

Morpheus

15th December 2005, 04:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:56 AM
Well, I think history has shown us what happens when peasant based societies try to skip over capitalism and head into communism. What was the result? Capitalism.
All of those revolutions were leninist, what about a non-leninist revolution? If the revolutionaries adopted a different means of organizing, a different philosophy and a different system to put into place during/after the revolution, like anarchism for example, then I don't see why you wouldn't get different results.

kurt

15th December 2005, 04:59

Great. We are talking here of the present condition and you are referring to several centuries ago. How timely you are. :D
It has nothing to do with "timing". It simply pointed out that what I said was indeed not a contradiction. If you still hold that it was a contradiction, argue against it.

You say you prefer material analysis, yet you don't know the material basis for communism. My goodness! :unsure:
Your "goodness" won't help you with a material analysis. If I don't know the material conditions, I'm not going to claim I do. In order to postulate a material analysis of something, one must have rigorous empirical data. Substituting your "ideas" of revolution isn't materialism, it's idealism.

All of those revolutions were leninist, what about a non-leninist revolution? If the revolutionaries adopted a different means of organizing, a different philosophy and a different system to put into place during/after the revolution, like anarchism for example, then I don't see why you wouldn't get different results.
I think that anarchist views only tend to take hold in modern capitalism countries, where the material conditions are favourable for such views. I don't think anarchism or any sort of liberatarian marxism is likely to take hold in a society that isn't ready for such views. A peasants class outlook generally restricts them from having such ideas as self-rule.

Floyce White

15th December 2005, 16:28

redstar2000: "To use the word [fatalism] now is archaic."

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The approach is archaic. It must be abandoned and criticized.

redstar2000: "To suggest that 'people are responsible for what they do' ignores both the material constraints and the historical constraints under which they 'decide' what to 'do.'

"We 'make our own history' but 'not under conditions of our own choosing,' as Marx pointed out."

Since when does "people are responsible for what they do" mean "people are responsible for what everyone before them did to make the world they were born into?" I don't want to unfairly accuse you of using a debaters' trick, but you're saying that I'm advocating the opposite of what I actually said.

redstar2000: "To expect peasants to 'choose communism' because it's 'the right choice' ignores everything about the material realities of peasant life...and their resultant 'world-view.'"

"Communism" means "the struggle of the poor against the rich." The poor don't choose to be born poor. They don't choose to struggle. The rich struggle violently to dispossess and exploit them. They must struggle in response just to survive.

"Peasantry" means "country-dwelling caste." This caste intersected with the mutually exclusive property classes. Most but not all peasants were lower class, just as not all workers are lower class (since many landlords and other petty proprietors take day jobs and thus are also wage workers).

redstar2000: "I simply pointed out that in those historical cases where peasant insurrections were successful, the leaders of the rebellion promptly established themselves as a new landed aristocracy."

I completely agree.

There is very little writing even nowadays by lower-class activists about their motivations, methods, and goals. I've been at hundreds of demonstrations where the only literature was that of petty-bourgeois leftists and anonymous articles that repeat the "party line" of opportunism and dogmatism developed by upper-class "leaders." The farther back we look in history, the more we're looking into a dark cave.

From what I can tell, lower-class rebels start out by speaking and doing as they have been instructed by their upper-class political bosses. However, as the revolutionary movement develops and strengthens, mass action quickly takes directions completely at odds with what the poor say they are doing. (During the Cultural Revolution, we had the finest example of poor activists doing everything except what they were saying.) The political bosses must either take police action to repress their own "followers," or they must throw them into a war of decimation against any external army. Afterwards, the history and analysis of the events are sanitized by upper-class interpretation.

If the discussion of past uprisings is simply to repeat historical accounts, we will always "prove" that the poor "really" fight only to change one oppression for another. However, this argument is false for today's struggles. Why? Because we find lots of lower-class activists in the here-and-now who energetically refute it. It would be non-sequitor to say that it could be true for yesterday's struggles simply because we cannot find any or but a few lower-class statements to the contrary. The problem is not any supposed "non-communistness" of the poor in the past. The problem is the anticommunism of upper-class interpretations and directions.

redstar2000: "...the past was even more horrible than now..."

Hundreds of thousands of generations of our hominid ancestors survived nonetheless. Obviously the past was not as horrible as "ape-man" movies make it out to be.

redstar2000

15th December 2005, 19:24

Originally posted by Floyce White
Since when does "people are responsible for what they do" mean "people are responsible for what everyone before them did to make the world they were born into?"

That was not my meaning.

I am only saying that people are born into a specific set of material and cultural circumstances...and that constrains both what they think it is "possible" to do and what they can actually do.

None of us can stand "outside of our own history"...even though we often imagine that we can -- because it is so easy to stand "outside" the history of others.

For example, we can imagine the possibility of the abolition of wage-slavery because we live in a period with the cultural apparatus that we call "history"...and we know that other forms of slavery have actually been abolished.

Someone who grew up in "the age of slavery", no matter how "brilliant", would find such a concept "unthinkable". Ancient slave revolts, where they actually had some brief period of power, proceeded at once to enslave their former masters...at least the ones they didn't kill outright or who were able to escape.

To use a more modern example, I think it could be argued that much and possibly even most of the Russian working class of 1917 overthrew the Czarist despotism because it was an incompetent despotism...it had brought unmitigated disaster to Russia and seemed totally unable to do anything constructive.

When the Bolsheviks appeared offering the implied promise of an effective and competent despotism, I think this "struck a chord" with many Russian workers.

Order would be restored and things would be run by people who were "much better at running things" than the despised aristocracy...and, moreover, run "in their own interests" rather than the interests of nobles, capitalists, and other useless scum.

While there were undoubtedly exceptions, I don't think most Russian workers really thought it possible that "they could actually run things themselves".

They couldn't think that.

Not because of Bolshevik "villainy" but because of the specific historical circumstances of the Russian working class of 1917.

"Communism" means "the struggle of the poor against the rich."

Well, no, it doesn't. In fact, such a "fuzzy" definition makes the word almost meaningless.

Communism has, in my opinion, a specific meaning.

What is Communism? A Brief Definition (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

One is always free to re-define a word in the interests of greater utility.

But I don't see how using the word communism to mean "the struggle between the poor and the rich" is useful.

In fact, what you're really saying is that communism is simply a synonym for class struggle...which ignores all the differences in kinds of class struggles throughout recorded history.

If the discussion of past uprisings is simply to repeat historical accounts, we will always "prove" that the poor "really" fight only to change one oppression for another. However, this argument is false for today's struggles. Why? Because we find lots of lower-class activists in the here-and-now who energetically refute it.

I'm not sure to whom you refer here.

There may quite possibly be struggles talking place today where people sincerely say that they want some kind of "different system" without any kind of "oppression" at all.

Only when we examine their specific material and historical circumstances can we determine, at least in principle, the "limits of the possible".

But there are limits.

Some things are not possible to do...no matter how much people may "want to do them".

Hundreds of thousands of generations of our hominid ancestors survived nonetheless. Obviously the past was not as horrible as "ape-man" movies make it out to be.

Strange. I would surmise that "ape-man" movies would portray a rather "sanitized" version of our life as savages.

But I'm not a "movie-buff" so I don't really know what sorts of things they show. A really graphic depiction of cannibalism seems unlikely...but I suppose it's possible. :lol:

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

Floyce White

16th December 2005, 01:15

Well, I'm glad the discussion has gone this far. We get a chance to discuss some of the finer points of theory in more detail.

redstar2000: "For example, we can imagine the possibility of the abolition of wage-slavery because we live in a period with the cultural apparatus that we call 'history'...and we know that other forms of slavery have actually been abolished."

I've given it some thought. You have some interesting points, and a discussion of these points would be useful. But the argument is speculative. It cannot be used to support or oppose a thesis. It is much better to use well-agreed-upon views about working-class struggles that we are very familiar with, and construct theories that are logically true about current conditions (but that also seem to fit with what we know about the past).

redstar2000: "Communism has, in my opinion, a specific meaning."

I read about half of your site. Some of the threads became repetitious and I abandoned them. Some topics were not interesting to me. It's always amazing to read the opinions of those who broke from the mold of "Marxism-Leninism."

redstar2000: "In fact, what you're really saying is that communism is simply a synonym for class struggle...which ignores all the differences in kinds of class struggles throughout recorded history."

The theory is ordinary deductive logic and it is based on very few premises. The logic is extremely simple and sound. I don't know where I heard the idea, but I didn't invent it. I was won to it because I couldn't beat it. I've been discussing it for seven years now, and no one has made any dent in its premises. To the contrary--petty-bourgeois leftists roll their eyes and make dirty comments when they see me coming. There is no higher praise than to be scorned by your enemy.

redstar2000: "Some things are not possible to do...no matter how much people may 'want to do them.'"

The things that are impossible to accomplish are the things we never attempt. Even the failed attempts at communist revolution teach us immensely and raise morale in the long term. Use your knowledge and experience. If you had to organize for communist revolution, how would you do it?

red_che

16th December 2005, 03:37

If I don't know the material conditions, I'm not going to claim I do. In order to postulate a material analysis of something, one must have rigorous empirical data.

If you really are a materialist, as you claim to be, you would know what makes up the conditions for a new society to emerge. Otherwise, you are nothing but a materialist-pretender, who is actually an idealist merely echoing materialist analysis without actually undestanding it.

You still haven't answered my questions. I'll repeat it for your sake, what exactly do you mean by a substantially developed capitalist mode of production? And to add some questions, when can you say that capitalism had already reached that stage and what is/are the material bases for communism? I won't reply to you unless you will provide the answers for these questions, okay!

Redstar, I am still waiting for your reply. I would gladly appreciate your reply.

kurt

16th December 2005, 05:08

If you really are a materialist, as you claim to be, you would know what makes up the conditions for a new society to emerge.
This statement is simply false. In order for me to "know" something so profound, I would require a substantial amount of empirical evidence. All I have to work from at this moment are isolated historical occurances which appear to point in the direction of my hypothesis.

Since you're making this claim, I suppose you have the "answer" for me. Unfortunately, the leninist/maoist "answer" has been proven ineffective and flat out wrong. Your hypothesis(which is all it ever really was) has been proven wrong. A real materialist would go back to the drawing board and start re-thinking the communist project, rather than simply reciting the same old shit.

Otherwise, you are nothing but a materialist-pretender, who is actually an idealist merely echoing materialist analysis without actually undestanding it.
You don't even really know what an idealist is. But I'll give you a hint, it has alot in common with leninism("correct lines" and good "ideas" can force communist revolution).

what exactly do you mean by a substantially developed capitalist mode of production?
We can't know for sure until our "theory"(and that's all it is) is vindicated by an actual proletarian revolution. However, I'd say that the western european countries are very close, or have already achieved these conditions. Do I know for sure? No, but you have abosolutely no clue.

And to add some questions, when can you say that capitalism had already reached that stage and what is/are the material bases for communism?
We'll know when an actual proletarian revolution occurs, until then we'll just have to keep struggling.

red_che

16th December 2005, 05:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:08 AM

If you really are a materialist, as you claim to be, you would know what makes up the conditions for a new society to emerge.
This statement is simply false. In order for me to "know" something so profound, I would require a substantial amount of empirical evidence. All I have to work from at this moment are isolated historical occurances which appear to point in the direction of my hypothesis.

Since you're making this claim, I suppose you have the "answer" for me. Unfortunately, the leninist/maoist "answer" has been proven ineffective and flat out wrong. Your hypothesis(which is all it ever really was) has been proven wrong. A real materialist would go back to the drawing board and start re-thinking the communist project, rather than simply reciting the same old shit.

Otherwise, you are nothing but a materialist-pretender, who is actually an idealist merely echoing materialist analysis without actually undestanding it.
You don't even really know what an idealist is. But I'll give you a hint, it has alot in common with leninism("correct lines" and good "ideas" can force communist revolution).

what exactly do you mean by a substantially developed capitalist mode of production?
We can't know for sure until our "theory"(and that's all it is) is vindicated by an actual proletarian revolution. However, I'd say that the western european countries are very close, or have already achieved these conditions. Do I know for sure? No, but you have abosolutely no clue.

And to add some questions, when can you say that capitalism had already reached that stage and what is/are the material bases for communism?
We'll know when an actual proletarian revolution occurs, until then we'll just have to keep struggling.
hohumm....

Nothing material and significant... :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

redstar2000

16th December 2005, 05:30

Originally posted by red_che
So, you mean that when socialist construction is undergoing, the bourgeoisie were already extinct?...

Remember redstar that when capitalism emerged, feudalism wasn't wiped out completely. Until now, feudalism still exists, though not dominant. That is the same when socialism emerges, capitalism will not become extinct right away. Capitalists (the bourgeoisie) will try to get back power, and with the help of these modern revisionists, they were victorious in Russia and China, and others. They succeeded because they turned their backs on socialism and, instead, restored capitalist mode of production. That was the reason.

Your "explanation" contradicts history as we know it.

Are you suggesting that the communist parties of Russia and China admitted significant numbers of the former ruling class into their parties?

And, moreover, raised up those alien class elements into positions of leadership?

To such an extent that the old bourgeoisie began to "re-establish" itself as a conscious class with conscious interests?

In principle, at least, you'd have to prove that thesis empirically.

In other words, you'd have to show that the leading "revisionists" actually came from the old bourgeoisie or were, for example, the sons and daughters of the old bourgeoisie.

I don't think you can do that. Under Stalin, for example, the Russian universities had a "priority system" of admissions.

1. Sons and daughters of leading party members.

2. Sons and daughters of ordinary party members.

3. Sons and daughters of urban workers.

4. Sons and daughters of peasants.

5. Sons and daughters of the old aristocracy, the old bourgeoisie, etc. -- presuming any room was left at all.

In other words, the descendants of the old ruling class were, by and large, not allowed to take even "the first step" up the ladder.

It seems plausible that the Chinese would have "copied" such a system from the USSR...since the USSR was their initial "model" for "building socialism".

Now, I suppose that you could argue that many petty-bourgeois young people joined the Russian and Chinese parties whenever they could...it was a "good career move" for an ambitious youngster.

And they brought their ideology "with them" into the party -- that they were "inherently superior" to ordinary workers and peasants and "deserved" whatever privileges they were able to grasp.

Over a generation or two, these elements could "evolve" into a conscious bourgeoisie...especially that portion that rose to leadership positions.

In fact, I would agree that this was "part of the process" of building a modern capitalist class in those countries.

However, this doesn't really explain the fact that the "leading revisionists" were old revolutionaries themselves! They were veterans of the Russian civil war or veterans of "the Long March".

They had occupied leading positions in the party for decades. They enjoyed the full confidence of the leaders that you would say were enemies of revisionism (Stalin and Mao).

How could it happen that they "turned their backs on socialism"?

The Marxist explanation is perfectly straightforward: they were the "board of directors" of the USSR, Inc. or People's China, Inc. -- and developed an ideology that fit their material circumstances...revisionism.

What's the Maoist "explanation"? Personal villainy?

You really can't credibly blame the "old bourgeoisie" because they really had no political significance or influence at the time these events took place.

A successful Russian capitalist who was 40 years old in 1917 would have been 79 years old in 1956. Did he "return to power"?

A successful Chinese capitalist who was 40 years old in 1949 would have been 67 in 1976. Did he "return to power"?

It was not the old (and long discredited) bourgeoisie that "returned to power" in those countries under the "revisionist" flag.

It was a new and completely modern capitalist class that was raised and nurtured by the party itself that not so much "came to power" but rather used the power that it had already accumulated to step forward boldly and openly declare its real class interests.

Contradictions will not end until the complete annihilation of classes and class contradictions. Socialism isn't yet communism. Classes still exist and so do class contradictions.

Well, one reason that "classes still exist" is that you insist on it. You replicate all the institutions of capitalist society with the Party in place of the bourgeoisie. Thus you reproduce the very ideological phenomena that you say you want to "annihilate".

What can the outcome possibly be other than the triumph of revisionism?

The only Maoist "weapon" against revisionism is ideological.

Hey kids! Just say NO to revisionism!

It doesn't work...and it never will.

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

kurt

16th December 2005, 05:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:15 PM
Nothing material and significant... :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
I applaud you on your expert refutation.

redstar2000

16th December 2005, 06:42

Originally posted by Floyce White
But the argument is speculative. It cannot be used to support or oppose a thesis.

Well, much of what I have written is, perforce, speculative. I do try to always make it clear to the reader when I am speculating and when I am arguing on the basis of historical experience.

When we speak of a classless society, we're really talking about something completely different from all of recorded history...which is necessarily speculative.

I think such speculation has a practical use...it helps us clarify what we really want and what we don't want at all.

We will not be alive to shape the future "in detail". But if we can establish some minimum standards that become widely accepted, then we will have "done our part" to "accelerate the train of history".

It is much better to use well-agreed-upon views about working-class struggles that we are very familiar with, and construct theories that are logically true about current conditions (but that also seem to fit with what we know about the past).

A truism, I think...but controversy emerges when we get to the details. Sometimes, things "well-agreed-upon" are, in fact, completely wrong. Sometimes there is even wide disagreement on "current conditions".

Trying to figure out how to practically yet effectively "change the world" may be the "hairiest" problem there is.

I read about half of your site.

I am astonished! And flattered as well. Most people who visit my site stay for 5-10 minutes...enough time to read one or two (perhaps three at most!) collections of my posts.

You must have "set a record"! :lol:

The theory is ordinary deductive logic and it is based on very few premises.

I think the word "theory" dignifies what is actually a very superficial observation. Yes, every class society is, in many important respects, shaped by the struggle between the wealthy and powerful elite minority and the oppressed and exploited majority.

But to say or imply that such struggles "are communism" or "could result" in communism is just wrong.

It's so misleading, in fact, that I can only speculate about the motives of whoever "thought it up". Did they think that Marx was "too rigid" or "too deterministic"? Did they have some kind of romantic "attachment" to pre-industrial societies?

Or were they just repulsed by Leninist dogmatism...a possibility that can never be ruled out. :lol:

In any event, you are free to "use" the concept as much as you like...but at the risk of being consistently misunderstood by most of the people on this board.

The things that are impossible to accomplish are the things we never attempt.

I have rather the opposite perception. It appears to me that humans often attempt the impossible...because we are purposeful entities.

We think, as someone put it once, that if we can imagine something, then it "must" be "possible".

It's only through "trial and error" (usually!) that we discover what is really possible and what is not.

If you had to organize for communist revolution, how would you do it?

Well, here are three more of my speculations on the subject...

A New Type of Communist Organization (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205534&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Doing Revolution (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1120364066&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Enjoy. :)

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

Floyce White

16th December 2005, 21:15

comradekurt: "No one knows the exact material conditions for communism, but we surely know when they are not in place."

Please admit that this is an error in logic. If you do not know the needed conditions, you cannot know if they do not exist.

comradekurt: "We can't know for sure until our 'theory' (and that's all it is) is vindicated by an actual proletarian revolution. However, I'd say that the western european countries are very close, or have already achieved these conditions. Do I know for sure? No, but you have absolutely no clue.

"We'll know when an actual proletarian revolution occurs, until then we'll just have to keep struggling."

Logic can prove truth or falsehood of a theory before the events. If we were to detonate all the nuclear bombs in the world, all multicellular life would cease to exist. We can prove this theory with logical reasoning even though nothing like it has ever happened. The many historical explosions of class struggle have given us ample evidence upon which to build valid theories of communist revolution. Of course, future events can disprove a theory that is now logically true--just as future events can uphold a theory.

The theory of communism through "superabundance" was all the rage when I was young. Now it has fallen into disrepute. Now you wonder about "the exact material conditions" without considering why this approach is becoming more favored today.

If "no one knows the exact material conditions for communism" after 160 years of theory and practice toward "dictatorship of the proletariat," this is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that the theory is false and can never help us form useful insights into today's and tomorrow's struggles. The theory was disproven in practice long before I wrote my essays criticizing it.

redstar2000: "When we speak of a classless society, we're really talking about something completely different from all of recorded history...which is necessarily speculative."

The discussion of logic looms large over this thread.

You assert that lower-class people before capitalism could not have known that the origins of their societies were in the overthrow of the previous forms of society. You assert that, consequently, they could not know of the possibility of eliminating the then-current form of exploitation, and their rebellion could only reproduce it.

The actual words of past lower-class rebels are not available. There is no evidence to prove or disprove this assertion. To help the development of your argument, you make the case that, if it were true, certain conclusions would follow. Fine. That is a valid method of investigation.

The assertion is unproveable. But you treat it as if it is true, and use it as a central premise of your hypothesis (about material conditions for communism). Since you use an invalid operation to develop a central premise, your hypothesis is not proven. It is logically false. Communist revolution does not depend on any material conditions other than the existence of property classes.

redstar2000: "Sometimes, things 'well-agreed-upon' are, in fact, completely wrong. Sometimes there is even wide disagreement on 'current conditions.'"

I don't see a problem. If our opinion of the factuality of certain current conditions is wrong, it will become apparent when a very solid proof gets snagged by one little detail. The little detail will then be scrutinized. If there is wide disagreement, treat it as a nested function, and carry it forward in the analysis. If the controversial aspects of current conditions are actually relevant, the current disputes will be resolved one way or another in the course of proving the hypothesis.

redstar2000: "Yes, every class society is, in many important respects, shaped by the struggle between the wealthy and powerful elite minority and the oppressed and exploited majority.

"But to say or imply that such struggles 'are communism' or 'could result' in communism is just wrong."

That's not what you said two years ago:

"Communism means the working class 'takes matters directly into its own hands.'" (Socialists and Communists, October 16, 2003 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083333881&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

kurt

16th December 2005, 22:25

Please admit that this is an error in logic. If you do not know the needed conditions, you cannot know if they do not exist.
It's not an error in logic. If I were to say that I knew that putting H2o in my car's fuel tank would NOT result in combustion, and at the same time not knowing what liquid would cause the desired affect for combustion, I'm not making a logic error. It's the same with material conditions.

Logic can prove truth or falsehood of a theory before the events. If we were to detonate all the nuclear bombs in the world, all multicellular life would cease to exist.
This is not a proven fact. We accept it as fact because in all likelihood that is what would happen.

If "no one knows the exact material conditions for communism" after 160 years of theory and practice toward "dictatorship of the proletariat," this is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that the theory is false and can never help us form useful insights into today's and tomorrow's struggles.
What a "crushing" refutation. Has it ever occurred to you that revolutions take time. Marxism was developed at a time when bourgeois revolutions were still happening, capitalism was barely even developed compared to the state it's at today. Sorry if this gets in the way of your revolutionary "timetable".

The theory was disproven in practice long before I wrote my essays criticizing it.
We've seen isolated examples of what can happen even when a vanguard is not present. Such examples also happen to be alot closer to an actual DOP than anything any vanguard has ever done.

redstar2000

16th December 2005, 22:49

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)The theory of communism through "superabundance" was all the rage when I was young. Now it has fallen into disrepute.[/b]

Indeed? "Superabundance" is, to all intents and purposes, a material prerequisite of communism.

To be sure, that doesn't necessarily imply the absurd levels of conspicuous consumption that prevail in the "western" upper classes.

But those who would suggest that communism "requires" some sort of mass "vows of poverty" are just kidding themselves.

Whether or not communism is "technically possible" at the level of contemporary technology is controversial. My own opinion is that "we're getting close"...on a historical scale.

Another "century or two" should do it...and maybe sooner. :)

The assertion is unprovable. But you treat it as if it is true, and use it as a central premise of your hypothesis (about material conditions for communism). Since you use an invalid operation to develop a central premise, your hypothesis is not proven. It is logically false. Communist revolution does not depend on any material conditions other than the existence of property classes.

Word-chopping...and not very good word-chopping at that.

My assertion may indeed lack direct written confirmation...but we do know what actually happened.

It is hardly "illogical" to assume that what happened bore some relationship with what people "wanted to happen" or at least what they thought "was possible to happen".

Your assertion, on the other hand, totally lacks any real world confirmation at all. It may "sound logical" to you...but it still fails to tell us anything useful except "Go ahead and try because any outcome is possible under any circumstances".

Well, if you want to, go ahead. But I don't think you'll find many people to follow you.

We humans like to at least imagine that we know "what the hell we're doing" and how practical it is to try...and you really can't deal with that except by saying "anyone can do anything if they really want to badly enough".

I don't think that's going to fly...except among a small group of people who think that ideas can "change the world".

That's not what you said two years ago

I'm always flattered to be quoted...but the context is sometimes important.

Here's the full passage...

redstar2000
If this deplorable situation is to be rectified in the new century, I think the duty falls upon real communists to make it clear what communism really means.

It does not mean the nationalization of the means of production. It does not mean a "strong state", democratic or autocratic. It does not mean participation in bourgeois electoral charades or any other formal mechanisms of "conflict resolution".

Communism means the working class "takes matters directly into its own hands".

Obviously, I was speaking of communism here both as a "movement" and a "working society"...and you may fairly reproach me for thus engendering some confusion in my choice of words.

So let me make myself as explicit as I can.

Real communists urge the working class to advance beyond the mechanisms of "conflict resolution" established by the capitalist class and take matters into their own hands.

A communist society is one in which the working class has actually done that successfully!

I hope that's clear. :)

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

Floyce White

17th December 2005, 03:35

comradekurt: "It's not an error in logic. If I were to say that I knew that putting H2o in my car's fuel tank would NOT result in combustion, and at the same time not knowing what liquid would cause the desired affect for combustion, I'm not making a logic error."

This is a very poor example. It's "my" car, "I" know what a car is, "I" know what cars are used for, "I" have a car, "I" know it needs fuel, and "I" know it has a fuel tank. In this situation, there is no excuse for "me" not knowing to put gas in the gas tank.

Let's say that you're on Jeopardy, the topic is "used for," and the $1000 answer is "Cleco clamp." You might guess that it's not used for a TV remote control, but that hardly any understanding. You wouldn't push the buzzer. If your understanding of aircraft manufacturing is so poor that you don't know what is a Cleco clamp, you really shouldn't be trying to instruct those who do.

redstar2000: "'Superabundance' is, to all intents and purposes, a material prerequisite of communism."

Jump in the grave with Ernest Mandel and Victor Perlo? I don't think so.

I quote myself:

"The rise of property classes was the humiliation and subjugation of productive activity. The division of labor, specialization of trades, mechanization, and other techniques of labor management cause some productive behaviors to be isolated from other associated and complimentary activities. Unrealistic labels of 'work,' 'education,' and 'leisure' are created. Specific 'work' behaviors become the subjects of economic thought, and the false distinction between economic and non-economic activity is used to promote an economic fetish. As with all fetishes, it originates from class society and serves to support class society. Communist theory is influenced by this economic fetish, and communists are won to the belief that society must pay excessive attention to and must always strive to maximize the 'work' behaviors. The result is the idea that communism must be defined as an abundance--or at least an adequate supply--of the goods and services that result from 'work.' The gushing adoration of producers is, in reality, backhanded support for their continued alienation.

"Communism is first and foremost a relation between people, not a relation between people and things. Relations between people are not altered by changes in the quantities of things. Relations between people change through the violent, revolutionary process of imposition and suppression, whereby new social relations are imposed and the old social relations are suppressed."

(What Is Communism and How Can We Achieve It? (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A13) December 1, 2001)

red_che

17th December 2005, 04:48

Your "explanation" contradicts history as we know it.

No, redstar. My explanation only contradicts your distorted view of history.

In other words, you'd have to show that the leading "revisionists" actually came from the old bourgeoisie or were, for example, the sons and daughters of the old bourgeoisie.

Wherever they came, redstar, what made them revisionists is the issue. How did they became revisionists? That is the question that should be answered. And I think that question was already answered. They became revisionists because of the continuing struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, not just economically and politically, but also ideologically. Revisionists are able to penetrate the party (CPSU, Bolshevik party) due to a major mistake made by their declaration in the 1936 Constitution of the USSR that there is no longer class contradiction in Russia. This is one major criticism on Stalin when he practically declared the non-existence of classes within Russian society and their opponents would now come only from the outside, i.e., Imperialist aggression. This major error by Stalin caused these petty-bourgeois elements, such as Kruschev and the likes, to be admitted in the party, who later turned their backs on socialism after Stalin's death and pursued the restoration of capitalist mode of production with its corresponding capitalist relations. Stalin was not able to see that it is very premature to declare such non-existence of class contradiction unless, and until, a substantial portion of the entire world population is freed from the yoke of capitalist exploitation. I say, maybe Stalin was just overwhelmed by the success of the industrialization program that many old social problems of Russia were resolved such as unemployment, education and health services, housing, etc.

Well, one reason that "classes still exist" is that you insist on it. You replicate all the institutions of capitalist society with the Party in place of the bourgeoisie. Thus you reproduce the very ideological phenomena that you say you want to "annihilate".

Well, you really don't know what socialism is, and what communism is. And most of all, you can't differentiate capitalism from socialism, much less communism. You don't know what socialist construction is. Practically, you can't even explain what are the conditions necessary to build or establish socialism or communism. yet, you act as if you really are a materialist.

Communism means the working class "takes matters directly into its own hands".

See? Your view of communism is distorted. Communism is not just the working class' "taking matters directly into their hands." Communism is the society where there are no classes, no class contradictions, no private property, no exploitation of man by man. In communism, there are no longer working class for there are no more division of man into classes. The working class' taking matters into their hands is done in the socialist construction.

redstar2000

17th December 2005, 11:14

I am starting to get the distinct feeling that this must be "Idealist Month" at RevLeft and I just missed the "official proclamation". :(

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)The result is the idea that communism must be defined as an abundance--or at least an adequate supply--of the goods and services that result from 'work.'[/b]

Maybe that's how some define it...but not me. Nowhere have I said or implied that "abundance" in and of itself was the "definition" of "communism".

It is the material foundation for communism. It is what makes communism possible.

A "communism of deprivation" would be inherently "unstable" and could probably be maintained only by a ferocious despotism.

Marx contemptiously dismissed such potential "societies" as "Prussian socialism" and "barracks communism".

If you want to live in something like that, be my guest. :o

Originally posted by [email protected]
This major error by Stalin caused these petty-bourgeois elements, such as Khruschev and the like, to be admitted in the party, who later turned their backs on socialism after Stalin's death...

I have no doubt that my view of history must always seem "distorted" to you...since your own gross ignorance of these matters must simply astonish the readers of this thread.

Wikipedia
Nikita Khrushchev was born [April 17, 1894] in the village of Kalinovka, Dmitriyev Uyezd, Kursk Guberniya, Russian Empire (now Kursk Oblast of the Russian Federation). In 1908, his family moved to what is now Donetsk, Ukraine. Although he was apparently highly intelligent, he only received approximately two years of education as a child and probably only became fully literate in his late twenties or early thirties.

He was trained for and worked as a joiner in various factories and mines. During World War I, Khrushchev became involved in trade union activities, and after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 he fought in the Red Army. He became a Party member in 1918 and worked at various management and Party positions in Donbass and Kiev.

In 1931 Khrushchev was transferred to Moscow and in 1935 he became 1st Secretary of the Moscow City Committee (Moscow Gorkom) of VKP(b). In 1938 he became the 1st Secretary of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party.

Beginning in 1934 Khrushchev was a member of the Central Committee of the VKP(b)/CPSU, and he was a member of Politburo from 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchev#Early_days

In other words, he worked "side by side" with Stalin from 1939 to 1953...with apparently no question being ever raised about his political outlook.

His parents, I think, were peasants, but he spent his entire youth as an urban worker and was a party member since 1918.

"Petty bourgeois"??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You should really learn something of these matters before attempting to pontificate on them.

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

infidel

17th December 2005, 12:52

Originally posted by Morpheus+Dec 15 2005, 04:50 AM--> (Morpheus @ Dec 15 2005, 04:50 AM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 05:56 AM
Well, I think history has shown us what happens when peasant based societies try to skip over capitalism and head into communism. What was the result? Capitalism.
All of those revolutions were leninist, what about a non-leninist revolution? If the revolutionaries adopted a different means of organizing, a different philosophy and a different system to put into place during/after the revolution, like anarchism for example, then I don't see why you wouldn't get different results.[/b]
Bla Bla Bla Bla. Would anyone tell me plz what does it mean???
Do you think that an occurance is changing it's form depending on how we are handling it! You and me and any one like us are just like some stones in a box ful of it. The events are going to happen due to the flux, that is the dialectics that is there in this stratified society. This dialectics increases the chaos whose outcome is ultimately the social change, may it be the revolution or something else in other languages. Doesn't matter in which way you are organising the machinery of this change. You can name it anarchism or leninism ar maoism. But if the analysis is wrong you are in nowhere. The entire situation would be fucked up. And if it is correct, well, people with the inclination towards different isms would see the same thing.well to make it simpler- You can't change the way the society is changing itself. When you are acting and taking part in this change following a certain ism you are actually doing that depending on your stance in the society and you cant do otherwise. it's out of your will.

Floyce White

17th December 2005, 17:34

redstar2000: "Nowhere have I said or implied that 'abundance' in and of itself was the 'definition' of 'communism.'"

I am aware of your opinion that socialist revolution would transist to communism within a couple of years at most. I call the whole time frame "communist revolution." I see agreement there.

Do you realize that my excerpt followed a passage about the "Marxist-Leninist" approach? That it was in the context of class struggle and revolution? Yes? Then why do you bother to imply that I would waste my time misrepresenting your views?

redstar2000: "A 'communism of deprivation' would be inherently 'unstable' and could probably be maintained only by a ferocious despotism."

If Mohammad won't come to the mountain...here is how my article continues in its next two paragraphs immediately after the above quote:

"An ongoing system of social relations can be either communist and peaceful or propertied and violent. The application of violence prevents people from using their productive abilities to reduce shortages in food, shelter, fuel, clothing, or necessary artifacts except as it benefits the aggressors. The application of violence forces people to use their productive abilities to make an abundance of goods and services that do not correspond to physiological needs--workers produce use-values that are useful to continue the rule of the aggressors.

"Communism is not the permanent elimination of hunger and disease, nor is it any temporary abundance of things. Conversely, communism is not a religious appeal to suffer and sacrifice for someone else's betterment. Communism is the well-reasoned concern for one's self as an inseparable part of the community, as opposed to a cunning, competitive calculation of "mine" and "theirs." Communism is thinking and doing for the well-being of everyone--knowing that each of us came from and always will be a part of that everyone. Communism uses the method of people sharing things, regardless of how abundant or scarce those things may be. Petroleum, natural gas, and coal are natural resources that become increasingly scarce as we use them. Scarcity of fuel will not undermine communism. Rather, communist, non-violent social relations will allow us to produce fuel crops if needed instead of setting us against each other in a scramble for control of naturally-occurring fuel. The never-ending fuel war in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and Central Asia is the total opposite of communist society."

Redstar2000, just repeating and repeating "material conditions" and "material foundation" doesn't even qualify as a mockery of proof. You are not fulfilling your obligation to prove the "material conditions" theory--much less prove one of its premises: that struggle "can't" become aware of its goals.

If you are not ready to do this, it is no shame to say "I don't agree but I need time to consider how to state my disagreement." That would be a lot better than accusing me of twisting words, not understanding, misrepresentation, etc.

redstar2000

17th December 2005, 19:48

Originally posted by Floyce White
An ongoing system of social relations can be either communist and peaceful or propertied and violent.

I would not dispute your contention that violence (or the threat of violence) lies at the "root" of all class societies...even when they appear superficially "peaceful".

But violence is a tool to maintain property -- not "the other way around".

Those who "have not" will take from those who "have"...unless they are intimidated by violence or the threat of violence.

This is a consequence of material shortages...class societies are not productive enough to produce enough for everybody.

In the "west", capitalism is (in my opinion) approaching the point in which it will actually be technically possible to produce enough for everybody.

What communist society's future generations will think "enough" is conjectural -- but I have little doubt that what they will consider the "decent minimum standard" will be substantially above present-day norms. As technology continues to advance, that standard will continue to rise.

Communism is the well-reasoned concern for one's self as an inseparable part of the community, as opposed to a cunning, competitive calculation of "mine" and "theirs." Communism is thinking and doing for the well-being of everyone--knowing that each of us came from and always will be a part of that everyone. Communism uses the method of people sharing things, regardless of how abundant or scarce those things may be.

Yes, I expect a communist "culture" will articulate those "values" and that most people most of the time will "act like that".

But watch out if people feel "shorted" of what they really need. If you're hungry and there's no food, it is no comfort to know that "everyone is hungry".

If you are a young strong male, you can use violence to obtain whatever food is available...up to and including killing and eating some weaker human.

Humans seem to have a "natural impulse" to share that which we have in abundance...but an equally strong "natural impulse" to hoard that which we think vital to our survival and is clearly in "short supply".

Since I was actually in New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina, I can speak with some first-hand experience here. In the first 48 hours or so, people did share food, water, cigarettes, etc.

But then it began to dawn on people that "this was serious" and things were not going to "go back to normal". So some young males banded together to take what they wanted by violence...and the weak perished.

That's when I fled! :o

This could all be "explained", of course, by the "every man for himself" mind-set that, of necessity, permeates capitalist society.

How people would react to "catastrophic shortage" in a communist society is necessarily conjectural as well. A cultural mind-set doesn't "instantly" collapse.

But if such a shortage is protracted, I would anticipate the worst. Perceived material deprivation usually "brings out the worst" in people.

That's why communism requires material abundance in order to remain viable.

And, by the way, it's also the reason why the most rebellious members of a class society don't usually come from the "very bottom" of the "social pyramid"...those folks are overwhelmed with the problem of survival for another day. That's all they can think about.

Being determines consciousness.

Redstar2000, just repeating and repeating "material conditions" and "material foundation" doesn't even qualify as a mockery of proof. You are not fulfilling your obligation to prove the "material conditions" theory--much less prove one of its premises: that struggle "can't" become aware of its goals.

I regret that my arguments are unconvincing to you and confess that I don't even grasp what you might accept as "proof".

The materialist basis of history appears to me to be "self-evident"...whereas your own hypothesis just "hangs up in the air" without any connection to the real world that I can see at all.

Have you examined the practices of the Hutterian Brethren? They are religious agrarian communalists (a kind of primitive "communism")...and might appeal to your proclivities. They are distant descendants of the great German peasant rebellion of the 16th century and consciously do all they can to preserve the heritage of Thomas Münzer.

It's a hellish life for women, of course, and probably pretty bad for kids as well. But it looks like a pretty good life for adult males...who don't mind lots of physical labor. I'm sure it beats the hell out of serfdom.

And they seem to welcome new recruits...possibly because their kids are "drifting away".

Just a suggestion. :)

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

red_che

18th December 2005, 05:36

Redstar, you haven't replied to any of my major contentions regarding your view of communism. You are merely looking into a small/minor errors in my statements and overexaggerating on those while you keep a deafening silence on my major arguments against you.

In other words, he worked "side by side" with Stalin from 1939 to 1953...with apparently no question being ever raised about his political outlook.

His parents, I think, were peasants, but he spent his entire youth as an urban worker and was a party member since 1918.

Okay, I had a mistake regarding this very minor detail. What I really want to imply in this statement is that Kruschev and the likes managed not to be purged out of the party dye to a major error of Stalin. And that when Stalin died, he started his revisionist programs in the guise of anti-Stalinism, and started the restoration of capitalism in Russia.

Maybe that's how some define it...but not me. Nowhere have I said or implied that "abundance" in and of itself was the "definition" of "communism".

It is the material foundation for communism. It is what makes communism possible.

My question then, is the conditions today, i.e., modern industry already produces superabundance of commodities? Is it not the necessary condition to wage the socialist revolution?

The fact is, this abundance of goods and services are concentrated only at the hands of a very few portion of the population, the capitalists. That abundance of goods and services, plus the tools of production concentrated at the hands of the elite bourgeoisie, must be seized by the proletariat in a socialist revolution.

What makes most of the proletariat not to act is, as you have said, that they are too concerned on how to survive on a daily basis.

It is now the role of the vanguard party to mobilize the entire proletariat. To arouse the class-consciousness of the masses of the proletariat, to organize them as a social class and mobilize them to overthrow the ruling capitalist system. They will lead the proletariat into a class-consciouss act of overthrowing the capitalist system up to the socialist transformation of society in order to build the material foundation for communism.

Floyce White

18th December 2005, 06:08

redstar2000: "But violence is a tool to maintain property--not 'the other way around.'"

Actually, the way I say it is that the definition of "property" is "the relation of violence between people in regard to things, places, ideas, and other people." It is not a matter of "other way around." Property and violence are cohorts. One is the excuse, the other is the action. The purpose of both is to get power over others--to use others. The exploitation of the dispossessed by the propertied is the one and only material reason for class society.

redstar2000: "Those who 'have not' will take from those who 'have'...unless they are intimidated by violence or the threat of violence."

Logically, it must be the other way around. Those who have, obtained what they have through threats and violence. Those who have not, do not use threats and violence.

The foundation of human psychology and socialization is the mother-child relation. Property and violence--using and abusing others--is an anti-social perversion of normal relations. It must be drilled into people in an intellectual version of the way that a happy and loving puppy is trained to be a fearful and vicious attack dog. The sooner we overthrow capitalism, the sooner such behaviors will permanently disappear. The mass knowledge of the existence of a rebellion movement is itself a factor in improving morale.

redstar2000: "This is a consequence of material shortages...class societies are not productive enough to produce enough for everybody.

"In the 'west,' capitalism is (in my opinion) approaching the point in which it will actually be technically possible to produce enough for everybody.

"What communist society's future generations will think 'enough' is conjectural--but I have little doubt that what they will consider the 'decent minimum standard' will be substantially above present-day norms. As technology continues to advance, that standard will continue to rise."

I am a materialist. The communities who survived to produce us had at least the minimum material conditions to support their biological and social functions.

Leftists throughout the years have propagandized about a "heaven on Earth," "utopia," "horn of plenty," "minimum programs," and "human decency." It is shallow iconoduly no different from red flags, big-character posters, or Che T-shirts.

redstar2000: "But watch out if people feel 'shorted' of what they really need. If you're hungry and there's no food, it is no comfort to know that 'everyone is hungry.'"

Many poor people have been without food, shelter, and other necessities to the point of having their health damaged for long afterwards. Others didn't survive. Poor people associate with one another. Poor people learn to help one another. From the real-life experience of being a working-class person, I have learned that the only thing I really need is to care for others, and to allow others to care for me.

redstar2000: "If you are a young strong male, you can use violence to obtain whatever food is available...up to and including killing and eating some weaker human."

If you are a young strong male, you can also draw with crayons, walk a dog, wear purple pajamas, or play Tiddly Winks. But then, when you were younger and stronger, you ate people when you were hungry. Come on! Admit it! You had a snack now and then, didn't you?

People have instinctive feelings of revulsion, regret, and embarrassment about causing hurt. These instincts help the species survive.

redstar2000: "How people would react to 'catastrophic shortage' in a communist society is necessarily conjectural as well. A cultural mind-set doesn't 'instantly' collapse.

"But if such a shortage is protracted, I would anticipate the worst. Perceived material deprivation usually 'brings out the worst' in people."

When facing a tough situation, people are usually very frightened. Especially young people. They don't reason well. They tend to overreact. However, as they survive different types and different degrees of hardship, they develop confidence in their abilities to cope. When they face situations in which they might perish, they discover the basic truth of mortality. Everything that lives--dies. It is not when or how you die, but how you live that matters. The people who learn this fact are much more able to help others through hard times.

redstar2000: "...I was actually in New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina..."

Then you know what I mean.

redstar2000: "And, by the way, it's also the reason why the most rebellious members of a class society don't usually come from the 'very bottom' of the 'social pyramid'...those folks are overwhelmed with the problem of survival for another day. That's all they can think about."

It is my experience that those with the most luxuries and advantages are the ones who can think of nothing but themselves.

redstar2000: "I regret that my arguments are unconvincing to you and confess that I don't even grasp what you might accept as 'proof.'"

Just as a meeting uses Robert's Rules of Order, an argument uses the rules of propositional logic.

redstar2000

18th December 2005, 16:50

Originally posted by Floyce White
The foundation of human psychology and socialization is the mother-child relation.

Well, up to a point, I suppose. As soon as child is old enough to interact with its peers, things get a lot "more complicated".

The communities who survived to produce us had at least the minimum material conditions to support their biological and social functions.

Yeah...but just read about them! They were shit!

From the real-life experience of being a working-class person, I have learned that the only thing I really need is to care for others, and to allow others to care for me.

I'm sorry...but this sounds like something written on a "Hallmark Card". It does not, even remotely, reflect what life is like in class society.

Indeed, it sounds almost...well, Christian. :o

There is another problem with "care" -- what you might interpret as "caring behavior" may be regarded quite differently by the recipient...from damn meddling to intolerably oppressive!

Consider what it's actually like to be in a hospital, for example.

No books, no internet, no decent food or drink, no smoking! :o :o :o

I'll pass, thanks.

People have instinctive feelings of revulsion, regret, and embarrassment about causing hurt. These instincts help the species survive.

Most people do most of the time.

When facing a tough situation, people are usually very frightened. Especially young people. They don't reason well. They tend to overreact. However, as they survive different types and different degrees of hardship, they develop confidence in their abilities to cope. When they face situations in which they might perish, they discover the basic truth of mortality. Everything that lives--dies.

You would seem here to be promoting "resignation" in the face of potentially lethal adversity.

Some people do react like this.

Others don't!

It is my experience that those with the most luxuries and advantages are the ones who can think of nothing but themselves.

One of the "lessons" of capitalism is the uncertainty of wealth. I think it's always in the "back of our minds" -- no matter how much wealth we have accumulated -- that it could all be gone tomorrow.

What would happen if I lost my job? What would happen if I lost my health insurance? What would happen if my pension plan went bankrupt?

We know what happens, under capitalism, to people without any wealth at all...and it's not anything pleasant to contemplate, much less experience.

So yes, all of us spend some portion of our time concerned with the possibility of future catastrophe.

In a communist society "of abundance", this kind of worry will largely "wither away"...because the possibilities themselves have largely vanished.

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

Floyce White

18th December 2005, 21:11

redstar2000: "Yeah...but just read about them [past communities]!"

Humans are animals like any other. We evolved to be perfectly adapted to survive in the conditions that once existed around the Rift Valley. Non-destructive adaptation of the environment was natural human ecology. To survive in those conditions must have been "normal" in every meaning of the word.

We invented cultural adaptations to survive everywhere. It is idealism not materialism to say that some survival is "good" and other survival is "bad." You wouldn't say that of mice or trees. Here's some logic: if your existence today is "good," then every condition that caused your ancestors to live as they did and thus produce you was "good." Since it is all "good," the term can be cancelled out of every line. Same goes for your existence today being "bad," "neutral," or "doesn't matter." The subjective appraisal has no relevance.

The problem with class society is that violence impedes survival. This is no idealist abstraction--it is a physical, material condition of hunger amid plenty, policing and warfare, and coercion to labor.

redstar2000: "There is another problem with 'care'--what you might interpret as 'caring behavior' may be regarded quite differently by the recipient...from damn meddling to intolerably oppressive!"

There are many poor people who would not have survived if their friends and loved ones did not help them with food, shelter, clothing, transportation, medicine, babysitting, friendship, sexual intercourse, or other ways of caring for them. "Care" does mean many different things, and does depend on the context of the situation.

Under the violent and selfish class society, many poor people have misgivings about whether and how to take interest in and care for others. Many poor people believe some of the propaganda about "pride" and "self-sufficiency" that interferes with their allowing others to care for them.

Churches, charities, social workers, military recruiters, police, and other selfish causes use the word "care" to mean whatever they want. This also causes poor people to have misunderstandings and reservations about the whole idea of "care." Marx took advantage of these misgivings to win worker-activists to the pro-capitalist concept that workers fight for "self-interest." Here's a partial but pretty good critique:

Why Marxism Always Fails (http://newdemocracyworld.org/marx.htm)

redstar2000: "You would seem here to be promoting 'resignation' in the face of potentially lethal adversity."

The point is that, once you fully realize all of ramifications of mortality, you pay less attention to fears about your own continued survival (or prosperity or achievement) and pay more attention to the needs of others.

redstar2000: "...how much wealth we have accumulated..."

This is a very poor way to phrase it. You as a self-described "Marxist" are using vulgar meanings of the key economic terms "wealth" and "accumulate."

redstar2000

19th December 2005, 05:09

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)Humans are animals like any other.[/b]

Um...no, not really "like any other" at all.

We have developed an enormously complex cultural apparatus...something no other animal has ever done (though some other primate species do show a rudimentary form of "cultural behavior").

And we've done this fairly quickly from a historical standpoint. The human species is now thought to be no more than 200,000 years old and class society perhaps 10-15,000 years old.

On an evolutionary scale, that's pretty close to instantaneous.

Non-destructive adaptation of the environment was natural human ecology.

That's one way to put it, I suppose, but it is also kind of misleading.

Savage humans did little or even no damage to their environment not because they "thought" that would be "a bad thing" but simply because there were too few of them to have any measurable impact and also the fact that they had no tools to make any significant alterations to their natural environment.

As soon as their numbers significantly expanded and both herding and agriculture were invented, their impact on their "natural environment" exploded.

And so things have gone ever since. We humans always seek to alter the environment to suit our purposes and, of course, those alterations can sometimes be very negative indeed.

It is idealism not materialism to say that some survival is "good" and other survival is "bad."

Yes, all "value judgments" are "idealist" by definition. We subjectively develop a series of preferences based on life experiences, reading, etc.

In fact, it is modern civilization that allows us to make such judgments on a far more informed basis than was ever possible before.

What did a slave, a serf, a 19th century illiterate factory hand, know of "other cultural options"?

As close to zero as makes no difference.

Things are different now. We know a hell of a lot more than our forefathers.

And things appear to be speeding up...some of the youngest adolescents on this board know more stuff than I did at 30!

I realize that there are people who want very much to "go back to the good old days"...with various definitions of what that phrase "good old days" might entail.

I've heard that one of them wants to "abolish language entirely". :lol:

But such people are simply cranks -- no one "takes them seriously" or ever will.

As for myself, I think that there are a few "old things" that might usefully be revived and a few "modern things" that communist society might well greatly diminish or even do without entirely.

But that's simply my own subjective opinion. Everything I see around me points to an insatiable human appetite for novelty.

Innovation comes as naturally to us as breathing.

Many poor people believe some of the propaganda about "pride" and "self-sufficiency" that interferes with their allowing others to care for them.

Capitalism does permit the illusion of "self-sufficiency" because it can disguise our interdependence with cash.

On the other hand, this illusion promotes yet another illusion: individual autonomy.

Paradoxically, that second illusion may promote the attitudes required for social innovation.

If class society "invades" my autonomy, that "opens my mind" to a critique of class society itself.

Who are these bastards to tell me what I can and can't do?

Perhaps we could say that the illusion of freedom is necessary before real freedom is possible.

Churches, charities, social workers, military recruiters, police, and other selfish causes use the word "care" to mean whatever they want. This also causes poor people to have misunderstandings and reservations about the whole idea of "care." Marx took advantage of these misgivings to win worker-activists to the pro-capitalist concept that workers fight for "self-interest."

Well, I agree with Marx. In fact, it's not just "workers" who "fight" for "self-interest"...it's everybody.

Even someone like yourself who wants "only" to "care for" and "be cared for" feels that way because you perceive it to be in your self-interest to live under such an arrangement.

From your link...

Originally posted by Dave Stratman+--> (Dave Stratman)In the Marxist view which Kane presents here, working people have no values within themselves as individuals which contradict capitalist values of selfishness and competitiveness.[/b]

I am not familiar with the writings of Mr. George Kane...but if he holds the views that Mr. Stratman imputes to him, then his "portrayal" of the Marxist paradigm is shallow indeed.

Certainly Marx himself never uttered such nonsense or anything like it.

What Marx did imply strongly in his analysis is that human behavior is determined by perceived material self-interest.

The "perceived" part is important. It doesn't necessarily correspond "perfectly" with "objective self-interest". There's a "time-lag" involved because it takes humans time to learn what is actually in their objective self-interests.

This has nothing to do, of course, with abstractions like "competition" or "cooperation" -- we pick one of those options as a matter of practical utility.

Cooperation is often of tremendous practical utility to those on the lower levels of the "social pyramid". And Marx anticipated that eventually the "workers of the world" would unite...as a matter of practical self-interest.

Continuing to support a caste of parasites would be self-evidently contrary to our material interests.

And we'd refuse to put up with it (or them) any longer.

[email protected]
It also is extremely demoralizing, and puts the left in the position of hoping that things get worse and worse for working people so that they will finally "become revolutionary."

Reformist claptrap!

Marx did not "hope" that things "would get worse" for working people "so that they will finally become revolutionary".

He predicted that capitalism -- towards the end of its life as a viable form of class society -- would make things worse and worse for working people.

One is still free to reject this prediction or argue that it was "falsified" by the reformist accomplishments of the first half of the 20th century.

I think it's starting to "look pretty accurate", myself.

I don't see how anyone could dispute the fact that working class standards-of-living have stagnated or even slightly declined over the last three decades.

And all those wonderful reforms: the ruling class is in the process of dismantling them even as the "need" for them grows. Capitalists say they "can't afford them" anymore.

Much to the dismay of the professional reformists, even the working class itself seems to be growing indifferent to reformism.

What's the point in "fighting" for something that can no longer be won?

Stratman
The Marxist paradigm is profoundly anti-democratic; it cannot lead to the liberating revolution which Marx himself desired. "Genuine communism" in the Marxist paradigm will always require a party elite to rule in place of the working class and to remold workers from the "competitive, selfish behaviors of capitalism" so that they are "cooperative and act to promote the common good." Authoritarian rule in the Soviet Union and China has its roots in the Marxist paradigm and the Marxist view of people.

By now, you have been on this board long enough to recognize that Stratman is simply expressing the vulgar bourgeois view that "Marxism = Leninism".

And you know better than that!

You as a self-described "Marxist" are using vulgar meanings of the key economic terms "wealth" and "accumulate."

Yes, I usually prefer ordinary language. Substitute whatever terms you may feel appropriate; it would not alter the sense of my meaning.

Because of the built-in uncertainties under capitalism, we can never have "enough" money.

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

red_che

20th December 2005, 08:28

My question then, is the conditions today, i.e., modern industry already produces superabundance of commodities. Is it not the necessary condition to wage the socialist revolution?

Redstar, you haven't answered this question yet. Are you trying to evade my questions?

redstar2000

20th December 2005, 13:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 03:28 AM
My question then, is the conditions today, i.e., modern industry already produces superabundance of commodities. Is it not the necessary condition to wage the socialist revolution?

Redstar, you haven't answered this question yet. Are you trying to evade my questions?
Your question is based on a profound misunderstanding of what revolutions are.

They are not "campaigns" to be "waged".

They are mass spontaneous uprisings that happen because millions of people are fed up with the old order.

The absence of such uprisings at the present time demonstrates that the objective material conditions have not yet matured for anti-capitalist revolutions to take place where they are supposed to take place...in the most advanced capitalist countries.

Recent events in France suggest that there is discontent...and there are small pockets of such discontent in every capitalist country.

But that's not the same as a revolutionary situation.

In the "third world" it is, in one sense or another, 1789...and the ruling classes in those countries are well aware that they live on the slopes of restless volcanoes.

You imagine that those revolutions will be "socialist" because they employ bits and pieces of "Marxist" rhetoric.

But they will be, in fact, bourgeois revolutions -- anti-imperialist and anti-feudal.

That's something that as a Maoist you simply "cannot accept". You imagine that Maoist ideas can "overcome" material reality.

Unfortunately for you, they cannot do that...and I can only imagine how much you will find that a "crushing blow" when reality finally shatters your illusions in this regard.

I hope that you won't end up like the Maoists of the late 70s...crawling back into bourgeois academia and mucking about in bourgeois reformism.

What a wretched fate!

When the time comes, I hope you will remember that giving up illusions about revolution does not mean that you must give up revolution.

As Marx pointed out, it is when we abandon illusions about the world that it becomes possible for us to change it.

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

Floyce White

27th December 2005, 21:27

I apologize for the delay in responding. I have not been near a computer.

redstar2000: "...real freedom..."

Why do you use a formulation that induces as its corollary "fake slavery?"

Floyce White: "This is a very poor way to phrase it. You as a self-described 'Marxist' are using vulgar meanings of the key economic terms 'wealth' and 'accumulate.'"

redstar2000: "Yes, I usually prefer ordinary language. Substitute whatever terms you may feel appropriate; it would not alter the sense of my meaning."

redstar2000: "...Stratman is simply expressing the vulgar bourgeois view..."

In the same post, you defend vulgar meanings when they serve your purposes, and oppose them when they do not.

Common-language terms are permeated with classist insinuations. If we are to be social scientists, we must insist on a uniform vocabulary for our discipline. If we are to be political activists, we must insist on a uniform vocabulary as part of well-rounded unity of word and deed. The meanings of many words and phrases are already well established by their usage in previous and recent working-class struggles.

Capitalist-class families "accumulate" "wealth." Working-class families do not. Working-class families accumulate nothing because they consume their incomes in the reproduction of labor. I will not budge one inch on this issue. There is no such thing as "proof by redefinition of terms." This objection to my essay is unfounded.

redstar2000: "And, by the way, it's also the reason why the most rebellious members of a class society don't usually come from the 'very bottom' of the 'social pyramid'...those folks are overwhelmed with the problem of survival for another day. That's all they can think about."

Hundreds of millions of lower-class people were involved in organized, self-aware class struggles in the 20th Century. Many of them suffered greatly from want. We cannot ignore this overwhelming empirical evidence, and look only at the scarcity of highly-impoverished people who get involved with petty-bourgeois, leftist causes in the US, or look only at the alienated and depraved behavior of some other poor people who are not involved in organized struggle.

The problem is not that millions of desperately poor people have a "time lag" in understanding. The problem is that "Marxists" have a "time lag" in accepting facts that refute conclusions they have already decided upon. Ignoring mass struggle, the discussion is mired in the vagaries of individual perceptions.

redstar2000: "Because of the built-in uncertainties under capitalism, we can never have 'enough' money."

The only thing certain in life is that we will all die. Life is uncertainty. The problem is violence, which unnecessarily poses gloomy certainty as a possible outcome of any social relation.

redstar2000: "Yes, all 'value judgments' are 'idealist' by definition."

That is not a useful definition. "Cats are good" is an idealist value judgment. "Cats are good pets" is a materialist value judgment. Values can be relative to a material application.

redstar2000: "We subjectively develop a series of preferences based on life experiences, reading, etc.

"In fact, it is modern civilization that allows us to make such judgments on a far more informed basis than was ever possible before."

Informed idealism is still idealism. Whether from the perspective of subject or object, idealist analysis proves nothing about the material world.

redstar2000: "What did a slave, a serf, a 19th century illiterate factory hand, know of 'other cultural options?'"

As I said before, the opinions of past lower-class rebels are not available. Speculation about the opinions of isolated individuals proves nothing about mass struggles then or now.

redstar2000: "Savage humans did little or even no damage to their environment not because they 'thought' that would be 'a bad thing' but simply because there were too few of them to have any measurable impact and also the fact that they had no tools to make any significant alterations to their natural environment. . . . Everything I see around me points to an insatiable human appetite for novelty."

Elephant damage to some species creates niches for others. The species that survive are those that evolved to be adapted to elephant activity. Same with early humans. If we must speculate about the origins of class society, the simplest and most-likely possibility is that early humans had no motivation to make "significant alterations" because it was extremely easy to get food and drink.

redstar2000: "As soon as their numbers significantly expanded and both herding and agriculture were invented, their impact on their 'natural environment exploded."

The surpluses of hunting and fishing, herding and farming did cause the numbers of humans to increase beyond what the natural food supply allowed. However, pre-surplus humans did not live at the edge of starvation. Adult mortality did not limit their numbers. There are many processes that limit fertility long before the food supply is exhausted. The crude "eat--reproduce--die" model is so absurdly false that the Johnny Appleseed fable is a better model. If we must speculate about the origins of class society, the least-likely possibility is that violence over food ownership is an ongoing, instinctive behavior due to a permanent natural condition of near-starvation.

redstar2000: "Well, I agree with Marx. In fact, it's not just 'workers' who 'fight' for 'self-interest...it's everybody."

Something is fundamentally wrong with an analysis if an abstract, classless "everybody" fights for the same thing. Let's examine this more closely.

"Self-interest." How do we discover what is "self-interest?" Through the only way available to us: human perception. With increasing accuracy over time, what the "self" perceives as interest is "self" interest. "Self" perception of class interest is "self" interest. "Class" interest is "self" interest. "Self" interest is "class" interest. "Self" equals "class." "Class" equals "self." The class interest of the working class is "self-interest." The class interest of the capitalist class is "self-interest." The class interest of everybody is "self-interest." Therefore, workers and capitalists have the same interest. And what interest is that? Of workers as workers, and capitalists as capitalists--just as they now perceive themselves to be. In this way, we can "prove" that workers and capitalists alike are interested in the current system of accumulation of fixed capital, and docile variable capital, to produce and circulate goods and services. In this way, we can "prove" that all lower-class persons throughout history all fought to reproduce their existing societies.

It's sophistry. We might just as well have said that "the people" fight for "'the people's' interest." "The people's" perception is "the people's" interest. "People" equals "class." The class interest of everybody is "'the people's' interest." And so on.

Instead of using shortcuts, we should say that what the self perceives as interest is self-perception of interest. What the self perceives as class interest is self-perception of class interest.

Upper-class people accumulate property as small family groups in competition with all others, and have individual power to get others to do what they want done. Upper-class interest is self-interest. Lower-class people are dispossessed en masse, and have no power except when united and organized as very large, cooperative groups. Lower-class interest is community interest.

Class interest is based on this material reality. Self-perceptions of class interest can be determined to be correct or incorrect regardless of the reasoning used to justify them.

redstar2000: "Even someone like yourself who wants 'only' to 'care for' and 'be cared for' feels that way because you perceive it to be in your self-interest to live under such an arrangement."

Do I advocate a mutual-aid society? No. Am I doing hedonic calculus about getting a better deal than I get now? No. You even posted that I might want to live a fantasy escapism in a monastic micro-commune. My self-perception of my class interest is already available to you. I clearly state what I advocate.

What is my perception? I could line my pockets with money anytime I wanted to. I don't like those who do. I'm not going to crawl on my belly before their lies about "everybody's" "self-interest."

redstar2000: "By now, you have been on this board long enough to recognize that... And you know better than that!"

Please do not address me in those terms.

redstar2000

27th December 2005, 23:51

Originally posted by Floyce White
In the same post, you defend vulgar meanings when they serve your purposes, and oppose them when they do not.

Of course I do. Whenever the "common sense" meaning of a word "will do", I use it. Whenever a more "precise" term is more useful, then I'll use that.

Language is made by humans for human use; humans did not evolve to fulfill the "purity" of language.

The meanings of many words and phrases are already well established by their usage in previous and recent working-class struggles.

So they are. You'll note that I objected to your unique definition of "communism" on that very basis.

But I am no more a slave to "common usage" than you are...or any other human.

I regard Stratman's vulgar equivocation of Leninism and Marxism as profoundly stupid...and I don't give a rat's ass if the entire planet presently thinks otherwise.

Make of that whatever you wish. :)

Working-class families accumulate nothing because they consume their incomes in the reproduction of labor. I will not budge one inch on this issue.

So don't budge. The empirical fact that many working class families actually have accumulated some wealth in late capitalism need not disturb your slumbers.

The chances are that this was a temporary phenomenon anyway...and may already be grinding to a halt.

Hundreds of millions of lower-class people were involved in organized, self-aware class struggles in the 20th Century.

In a manner of speaking. But to speak of the "self awareness" of half-starved Russian or Chinese peasants is really not saying much.

The problem is that "Marxists" have a "time lag" in accepting facts that refute conclusions they have already decided upon.

So we have often been charged.

I have no idea, of course, what "facts" you imagine have "refuted" us...as your posts seem mostly concerned with the uses of language and logic.

You rather remind me of some of our "strident" agnostics.

You can't be an atheist until you absolutely prove that all possible gods do not exist.

Your version...

You can't absolutely prove that historical materialism is absolutely true, therefore it's false.

Have it your way...why should I care?

The only thing certain in life is that we will all die. Life is uncertainty.

But whenever humans have the opportunity, they nearly always choose certainty over uncertainty.

Why do you suppose that is?

Therefore, workers and capitalists have the same interest.

No, that doesn't follow from all your premises unless you also posit that workers and capitalists "are members of the same class".

I think even you would balk at that.

In this way, we can "prove" that workers and capitalists alike are interested in the current system of accumulation of fixed capital, and docile variable capital, to produce and circulate goods and services.

Well, that does seem to be the case at the present time, does it not?

As long as capitalism "works well" and "delivers the goods" as far as most people are concerned, why "fix" what "ain't broke"?

Marx said this would "inevitably change" for the worse.

Was he right? I think so.

But we'll see.

I clearly state what I advocate.

I'm afraid that your "clarity" escapes me. I frankly have no idea of what sort of future post-capitalist society you would like to live in...except for your odd proposal to "dismantle cities" and occasional hints that you find "abundance" distasteful.

Something that makes no sense to me at all.

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

Floyce White

30th December 2005, 21:13

redstar2000: "Of course I do."

I don't think you realize how serious an admission this is. Please reconsider your statement.

redstar2000: "...working class families actually have accumulated some wealth..."

Those who did, no longer were working class.

redstar2000: "You can't absolutely prove that historical materialism is absolutely true, therefore it is false."

This is an axiom of propositional logic. As with any other idea, historical materialism must be absolutely proven, or else it is false.

redstar2000: "No, that doesn't follow from all your premises unless you also posit that workers and capitalists 'are members of the same class.'

"I think that even you would balk at that."

That conclusion does follow from the argument I showed to be sophistry. You make a brilliant deduction. Since you don't agree with its conclusions, you should stop making the "self-interest" argument.

redstar2000: "...as your posts seem mostly concerned with the uses of language and logic."

Would you prefer I use sophistry?

redstar2000

31st December 2005, 05:41

Originally posted by Floyce White
Would you prefer I use sophistry?

I'd prefer you to talk about real things and why they happen...instead of the convoluted intricacies of "logic" and "linguistics" which seem to fascinate you so much.

We do have a forum for that sort of thing: Philosophy.

And you are by all means welcome to make use of it.

But in this forum, I simply don't understand what you are trying to say...it sounds abstract to the point of irrelevance.

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

Floyce White

3rd January 2006, 20:33

redstar2000: "I'd prefer you to talk about real things and why they happen...I simply don't understand what you are trying to say."

Ha ha! That's pretty funny--coming from someone who says there's an unproveable "condition" for communism that might not yet or ever exist, that needs a magical "material" of unknown origin, the argument for which consists entirely of speculation about unwritten perceptions and awarenesses of the long dead!

I play chess too. I understand what it means to force a stalemate. "Marxists" always stop discussing when the end game isn't going their way. But hey, "Marxists" just set up the board again for the next guy who comes along, and play the same old lines--as if the previous discussions never happened. That's just the kind of people they are.

redstar2000

4th January 2006, 01:40

Originally posted by Floyce White
I play chess too. I understand what it means to force a stalemate. "Marxists" always stop discussing when the end game isn't going their way. But hey, "Marxists" just set up the board again for the next guy who comes along, and play the same old lines--as if the previous discussions never happened. That's just the kind of people they are.

As you wish.

In my opinion, you simply don't have anything interesting to say.

If that makes me a "bad guy" in your eyes...well, that can't be helped.

I "call them like I see them"...as does everyone.

Sorry.

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

Floyce White

5th January 2006, 21:54

I made an error in a previous post.

Floyce White: "As with any other idea, historical materialism must be absolutely proven, or else it is false."

I should not have inserted "absolutely" just because you emphasized with that adverb. There is no such thing as "absolute truth." Thus, there is no such thing as an "absolute proof." I now correct myself:

As with any other idea, historical materialism must be proven, or else it is false.

Redstar, writing is a form of work, like any other. It has rules that we must learn and follow. Argumentation/debate is also a form of work. Its rules are spin-offs from the rules of logic. Working-class people learn these forms of work as they practice them. The more we do it, the better we get. After some decades of using formal written English and formal logic, it becomes second nature--like driving.

Some people don't drive much, but still are out there in traffic. Same with political discussion. The lack of logical structure in arguments is an ongoing condition that working-class activists have to deal with. It is a sign of the immaturity of the labor movement--not the personal fault of individual activists. You are not a "bad guy." You simply do not get much opportunity to discuss politics with workers who demand that you use logical reasoning and formal English. That's why you think it's OK for you to use vulgar meanings, while others shouldn't--and so on.

I am very interested in discussing the issue of "dictatorship of the proletariat." But this thread has turned out to be you and me because we have a lot more experience than the others on this board, so we have more to say. You're totally uninterested in the logical and semantical aspects of the issue. I think that's because logic and semantics aren't second nature to you. So the whole thing is bogging down on the question of: is logic "reasonable" and are semantics "useful words?"

I have enjoyed our discussion, and I have learned from it. But I still assert that any "leaderist" is a "leaderist" because he or she does not admit error in dated material. Without admission of error, there is no learning--just repetition of error.

redstar2000

6th January 2006, 03:36

Originally posted by Floyce White
As with any other idea, historical materialism must be proven, or else it is false.

It seems to me that the vast preponderance of the evidence favors the historical materialist paradigm...though I would certainly grant that proletarian revolution and communism remain at the hypothetical level.

They "logically follow"...but until we actually see them happen, we can't say that it's "proved" that they "must happen".

I am obviously not in any position to summarize the hundreds or even thousands of books that have been written using the tools of historical materialism to investigate past societies...or how well those books explain why things happened the way they did.

In a limited way, I can use those tools myself. On occasion, I have been challenged on this board to explain various historical events using those tools...and I think I've done a pretty decent job for an amateur.

But, alas, I do have my critics. :(

Redstar, writing is a form of work, like any other. It has rules that we must learn and follow. Argumentation/debate is also a form of work. Its rules are spin-offs from the rules of logic. Working-class people learn these forms of work as they practice them. The more we do it, the better we get. After some decades of using formal written English and formal logic, it becomes second nature--like driving.

I am hardly "qualified" to speak on these matters. Nevertheless, it seems to me that formal logic/argumentation is very much like a computer.

Garbage in; garbage out.

Consider the computer game called, I believe, Sim City. The developers of the game made certain assumptions (consciously or unconsciously) about social reality while they were writing the code.

Thus, for example, if you tax businesses too vigorously, the businesses all "leave your city" and your city "dies". The option of running all your enterprises as "municipally owned" doesn't "exist" in that "universe".

Thus it is that when someone says that I have "violated" some "rule" of "logic", I look for the "hidden assumption".

Because I know from experience that people don't bring that sort of thing up out of a "pure-minded devotion to abstract rational thought".

Like me, they have an agenda...and more often than not, it's opposed to mine.

Thus I prefer to bring that out -- the merits or lack of same of opposing agendas.

You simply do not get much opportunity to discuss politics with workers who demand that you use logical reasoning and formal English. That's why you think it's OK for you to use vulgar meanings, while others shouldn't--and so on.

It's certainly true that I am "out of touch" with academia...and, in fact, have never really been close to such people at all. A professor who visited my site would probably be very critical of it for all sorts of "academic" reasons...including my preference for "ordinary" (non-academic) language.

I do not say that others "cannot" use ordinary language...only that they must use it accurately.

Only someone entirely ignorant of Marxism, for example, would propagate the conflation of Marxist theory with Leninist practice.

Leninists don't call themselves "Marxists" because they think "Marx was right". In fact, Leninist theory is largely devoted to "explaining" why "Marx was wrong" and "Lenin was right".

But Marx does have a "towering reputation"...and the Leninist pose of "Marxist" is really nothing more than the desire of dwarves to dress in the robes of giants.

Which, as you must be aware, has finally attracted public attention...and ridicule.

You're totally uninterested in the logical and semantical aspects of the issue. I think that's because logic and semantics aren't second nature to you. So the whole thing is bogging down on the question of: is logic "reasonable" and are semantics "useful words?"

Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.

If your logic is like "iron" and your semantics are "pure" and yet you still arrive at a conclusion that makes no sense...then something has to be wrong.

There has to be one or more erroneous assumptions "built-in" that result in that wrong answer.

Without admission of error, there is no learning--just repetition of error.

No doubt...but so what? If one has not been convinced that one is in error, why then make a "false confession"?

Where's the gain in that?

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