Revolution And Capitalists

[Proletar]

I have one question about revolution and capitalist

what to do with them when the revolution have been succesfull?
what does the revolutionary forces do with?
what are they gonna work with?
does they get the same as evryone else?

[Lamanov]

In my opinion: each individual capitalist, after his expropriation, has to integrate himself into the community - that is -- he has to work like everyone else.

Of course, most (99% probably) of capitalists will resist their expropriation, so it's probable that their political rights will be revoked.

[drain.you]

Theres been a thread on this somewhere before.
My views dont differ much from DJ-TC, after the revolution they can accept that society has changed and fit into it. If they do not act by our rules then they are breaking our laws and therefore we arrest them. If they are being extremely radical then perhaps they should be exiled or given a life sentence.

[redstar2000]

It is simply impossible to "predict" the fate of any individual capitalist "immediately after the revolution".

All we know "in general" is that they will be deprived of their property and accumulated wealth.

After that, it all depends on the existing circumstances.

One "lesson of history" seems likely to apply here. The more violence that an old ruling class has used to repress the people before the revolution actually takes place, the more violent will be the reprisals against that old ruling class when the revolution finally does take place.

Stalin was not born a "mass murdering bastard". He went to school in Czarist Russia...where massive and sustained brutality against ordinary people was routine daily practice.

So what happens to individual capitalists "after the revolution" will largely be determined in the decade or so before the revolution.

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

[polemi-super-cised]

The more violence that an old ruling class has used to repress the people before the revolution actually takes place, the more violent will be the reprisals against that old ruling class when the revolution finally does take place.


Well, the revolution itself will likely wipe out most of the capitalists - the ones that are particularly determined to fight for their private property and class privileges, I mean. The "revolution", when it arrives, no longer represents class struggle but class war. And in war, people die. You can be sure that the ruling class will not surrender it's position voluntarily!



Of course, most (99% probably) of capitalists will resist their expropriation, so it's probable that their political rights will be revoked.


Indeed.



Stalin was not born a "mass murdering bastard". He went to school in Czarist Russia...where massive and sustained brutality against ordinary people was routine daily practice.


That, and the fact that his drunken father beat him for fun. Poor Iosif. :P

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by polemi-super-cised
Well, the revolution itself will likely wipe out most of the capitalists - the ones that are particularly determined to fight for their private property and class privileges, I mean.

I wouldn't go that far. Capitalists do not carry arms and do not fight in the first row -- they have the police and miltary for that, so it's not likely that capitalists themselves will get "wiped out" as a class through armed struggle.

The greatest consequence the bourgeois class will draw out of the economic segmet of class war, and not the armed struggle itself - which is a secondary process.

"Wiping out" is not something required. After all -- it's a social revolution - and not a barbaric raid.

[polemi-super-cised]

Capitalists do not carry arms and do not fight in the first row -- they have the police and miltary for that, so it's not likely that capitalists themselves will get "wiped out" as a class through armed struggle.


"Capital" funds the police, and the military. "Capital" is contributed by individuals. These individuals need not fight "on the front line", or whatever... But if they are victorious, the revolution is defeated. If they are defeated, the revolution is victorious: and anyone pledging their allegiance (i.e cash) to the counter-revolution, I imagine, will find themselves victim of "revolutionary justice".

I certainly wouldn't have any problem shooting them all. Not that it's for one person to decide the fate of an entire (reactionary) class...

But I'm guessing that most "capitalists" will expect to be killed, if the revolution is successful - which is why they are likely to fight "dirty" and do anything they can to suppress the workers' movement.

They certainly cannot continue to live as a distinct (class) entity, after the revolution.

[Lamanov]

Well, the greatest thing about the dynamics of the revolution is that necessary happens.

We could expect that in the revolutionary process capitalist individual will be stripped of all possibilities of reaction. Thus, after total suppresion "wiping out" is not a necessity.

But we can never tell, now can we...

[Vanguard1917]

We should do everything necessary to defend the revolution from counter-revolutionary forces.

But that doesn't mean that we start killing everyone in some kind of paranoid frenzy.

We have to do our best to think over every situation as rationally as possible.

Also, as DJ-TC pointed out, the capitalists themselves will not be on the front lines of the class war - their armies (and police forces) will be at the forefront of their struggle against us. So once we defeat their armies and overthrow their state, we will need our own state power to defeat the capitalists who still pose a threat.

But workers' state power is radically different from all old forms of state power in that a workers' state represents the mass majority of the people. It is also a more rational form of rule, precisely because it represents the rule of the majority. The economy is rationally planned, and not dictated by the market. Political decisions are made rationally, and are not made according to the interests of a minority that has economic power. And repression is conducted in a more rational way - individuals will be repressed according to the threat they pose as social forces, not as individuals.

[ReD_ReBeL]

once the revolution has been successful i believe thy should be treated as an equal and thy r not sabotaging the revolutionary progress ie.damaging oil pipes etc, IF thy are sabotaging trying to bring down the revolution i believe thy should be throwin in prison i dont believe thy should be executed tho.Once in prison the punishment shall reflect that of the damage they have done for example if thy r sabotaging thy get a few years but if thy r murdering revolutionaries thy shall get life just as in any case for murder .

Yes i believe capitalists should be allowed to do anything tht a pro-revolutionary can, becoz we r building a state up on equality and as long as the capitalists go along with it there should be no neglectment of thm.

[polemi-super-cised]

So once we defeat their armies and overthrow their state, we will need our own state power to defeat the capitalists who still pose a threat.


I think a universally recognised central authority, with the legitimate power over life and death, will not simply "appear" in a revolutionary situation. I imagine that real conditions will be far more chaotic - with localised people's militias and collectives deciding the fate of "counter-revolutionaries" in their midst.

And in the immediate atfermath of a Communist uprising, with the security of the revolution very much in doubt, any "social force" opposing the Red victory must be "neutralised". (Make of that what you will...) I reckon this means killing individuals, and liquidating classes.

It makes perfect sense to eliminate all possible threat of counter-revolution, by imposing the harshest measures possible on our "enemies". This is wholly rational. And no-one needs a "state" or a "vanguard party" to realise these policies!



Yes i believe capitalists should be allowed to do anything tht a pro-revolutionary can, becoz we r building a state up on equality and as long as the capitalists go along with it there should be no neglectment of thm.


We are attempting to build a society based on equality and the removal of economic exploitation, which is exactly what capitalists don't want! "They" do not treat "us" as equals in today's society - so there is no reason to sympathise with these parasites after the revolution. Freedom for the proletariat means ruthlessly oppressing the bourgeoisie!

[Vanguard1917]

It makes perfect sense to eliminate all possible threat of counter-revolution, by imposing the harshest measures possible on our "enemies". This is wholly rational.

Yes, our class enemies must be eliminated. But the fact that you put the word "enemies" into inverted commas tells me that you're not very sure who our real enemies are. There can't be this kind of confusion in a workers' revolution. There can't a such a chaotic understanding of the revolutionary role of the working class.

Sure, there will be some levels of chaos in a revolutionary situation. But that doesn't mean that chaos is a 'good thing'. Chaos is a product of a lack of organisation. The more organised the revolutionary working class is, the less chaotic the revolution will be.


And no-one needs a "state" or a "vanguard party" to realise these policies!

When masses of people come together, they are able to more rationally form and conduct political policies. If people are left atomised, they are disconnected from the movement, and are therefore unable to make decisions that correspond to the interests of the revolutionary movement as a whole.

This is precisely the role of the revolutionary party: it aims to bring together all revolutionary currents existing within society. It's the political organisation of the working class. It aims to organise the most advanced sections of the working class (which, in a revolutionary situation, does not mean a few thousands but millions of working class people) into a mass movement of people.

The workers' state is the organised rule of the working class in the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. It is historically necessary.

[polemi-super-cised]

The more organised the revolutionary working class is, the less chaotic the revolution will be.


Hang on... I'm assuming (your name gives me a clue) that you favour "organisation" along the lines of the Bolshevik programme in the early 20th century, right? Well, in my opinion, as soon as you create an "organised revolutionary party", you create a "party line" - and of course, you need to recruit people to do the organising. This is far too centralised and authoritarian; such a party could never claim to represent the millions of revolutionary workers in 1917, nor at any other point in history.

I think the worker's movement is of necessity a mass-movement... But that doesn't mean that it needs to be "drawn" into a centre, or "guided" (read: misguided) by the "professional revolutionaries". Of course we will work together - and of course we strive for the same goals. But the fact remains: no sanction is required from any "central authority" for the execution of a counter-revolutionary. Or indeed, for the execution of a thousand such wastrels.

A "state" is less able to effectively organise the details of repression (against the bourgeoisie) than local committees, elected by and led by the people. All it can do, and all it need do, is provide a banner to rally around; it ought to act as a forum for open discussion between equal individuals... Absolutely no power is allocated to it.



The workers' state is the organised rule of the working class in the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. It is historically necessary.


A vanguard party is not historically necessary. It is historically probable - as we've seen. But following that route is dangerous, witness the tragedy of 1917. Communism is achieved by renouncing links with the past, and redefining society in classless terms. State organs and state functionaries, as well as acting in the interests of the ruling class, act in their own interests. Concentrate power in one area for too long, and it will be abused. I say: No!



But the fact that you put the word "enemies" into inverted commas tells me that you're not very sure who our real enemies are. There can't be this kind of confusion in a workers' revolution.


Oh, I'm well aware that confusion will arise as to "who the enemies are". I imagine that a few hundred thousand "innocent" people will die; but that's life. (Aha!) Revolutionary justice is unlikely to be perfectly refined instantaneously... I expect you'd make "enemies" of anyone not belonging to "the party", eh? :P

[Vanguard1917]

I'm assuming (your name gives me a clue) that you favour "organisation" along the lines of the Bolshevik programme in the early 20th century, right? Well, in my opinion, as soon as you create an "organised revolutionary party", you create a "party line" - and of course, you need to recruit people to do the organising.

I think the Bolshevik organisation was justified by the historical conditions that existed in Russia in the early 20th century.

I don't think, however, that we should copy Bolshevik organisation: simply because differing historical conditions call for differing form of political organisation.

But, nonetheless, the conditions that make a vanguard party necessary will always exist in times of class conflict in capitalist society. In capitalist society, the working class necessarily acts with false consciousness: i.e. working class consciousness does not correspond to its objective position as a class. This is due to the fact that it is a class that exists in capitalist society. And, as Marx and Engels said, the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas and the rest of society is subjected to such ideas.

Under certain conditions, certain sections of the working class possess a more advanced form of consciousness than that of the rest of the working class. These workers must form themselves into a workers' party with the aim of winning over the rest of the working class to their programme.

In such a situation (and i'm not at all arguing that this is the situation around which many so-called Leninist parties of past and present have formed their policies), the 'party line' is essentially based on the level of consciousness of these most advanced members of the working class - i.e. the revolutionary sections of the working class. And, as Marx and Engels also state, the existence of revolutionary ideas presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class.


I'm well aware that confusion will arise as to "who the enemies are". I imagine that a few hundred thousand "innocent" people will die; but that's life.

With high forms of organisation, there should be very little confusion at all concerning who our enemies are - and certainly not to the extent that hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die.

[Proletar]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 11 2005, 01:25 PM
In my opinion: each individual capitalist, after his expropriation, has to integrate himself into the community - that is -- he has to work like everyone else.

Of course, most (99% probably) of capitalists will resist their expropriation, so it's probable that their political rights will be revoked.
But how do you insure that the capitalist is working? there will be no force in a communistic rule..

[polemi-super-cised]

'Vanguard1917', you don't seem to have grasped the point I was trying to make... You claim that "the vanguard party" (singular) is the sole arbiter of truth, in that it possesses the only legitimate claim to "objective" class-consciousness. And you distinguish this from "false consciousness". But can't you see that this necessarily makes all those who fail to "tow the party line" counter-revolutionaries?

Any disagreements over relatively minor policy issues are likely to result in factionalism and party divisions - remember, the Bolsheviks were initially part of a larger Russian Marxist party, the RSDLP. And even the fabled Bolshevik "party discipline" (incidentally, a myth) failed to overcome the bitter in-fighting witnessed throughout the history of the movement... Lenin vs. Kamenev and Zinoviev pre-October over the question of the seizure of power, Lenin vs. Trotsky vs. Bukharin concerning the Brest-Litovsk peace and Trotsky vs. Stalin (the "rightful heir" of Lenin etc.) being only the most well-known.

I'm sure you are aware of the history of the Russian revolution. Lenin's Bolshevik party adopted the "vanguardist" mentality in power - they were quick to outlaw rival socialist factions (the Mensheviks, SRs, and eventually the 'Left SRs'), and quick to repress any workers' demonstrations or protests that weren't organised from within the party. Thus I maintain: any "central authority" with even the most tenuous and feeble grip on power serves itself as well as the class it claims to represent.

The Bolsheviks didn't "lead" the proletariat to glorious Communism; they force-marched hungry, desperate men and women to a nightmarish (yet "red-framed") vision of hell.

Of course "class-conscious" workers should attempt to educate their ignorant (or rather, "less-well-informed") brethren. And no: I don't propose a "ban on organisation"... But the "vanguardist party", as a concept, is dangerous; it conceals (or can conceal) all sorts of hidden motives and is too easily abused. It cannot form the foundations for any classless society, and it is no "means" to the "end".



... certainly not to the extent that hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die.


Awww, but we have to shed innocent blood! Otherwise it isn't a proper revolution! :P (Joking!) Seriously though, I don't see how any movement attempting the overthrow of the world's most powerful class system ever, can hope to "win" without a few extra (surplus to requirements, ahaha!) casualties along the way. It isn't possible, not even if you were given a hundred years to plan for every eventuality, and "favourable conditions" to operate in when the proverbial shit hits the fan. Revolution is messy. Rivers of blood will flow, and that's just for starters. :)