On the Mode of Production

[red_che]

I guess I have to make a thread on this. This is a basic Marxian analysis on every society.

A definite social system is based on its economic foundations, its mode of production which has two elements, the forces of production and its corresponding relations of production. Capitalism has as its primary forces of production, the workers, and modern industry, i.e., the machines and manufacturing, as its means of production or tools for production. Its corresponding relations of production consists of the bourgeoisie as the owner of the tools for production and the means of production and exchange, and the workers selling their labor power for wage, thus they become wage-slaves.

The capitalist forces of production continues to develop as evidenced by its more and more high-tech tools and machineries. This shows that the skills and knowledge of the working class people develops as they go on producing and developing new and more advanced means of production. More and more commodities were produced, at a faster pace.

However, on the other hand of the capitalist mode of production, the relations of production have stagnated and thus, it hinders the further development of the entire capitalist mode of production. As the workers produce more, the capitalist rate of exploitation become even higher, and thus, the wages and the capability of the proletariat to consume its products decreases. The tools for production becomes more and more concentrated at the hands of the monopoly capitalists. As such, more and more surplus products are being dumped and destroyed, thereby creating the capitalist crisis of overproduction. Such crisis becomes ever sharper from the previous and therefore, sharpens more the class contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

My question now is, is this condition still not enough to start a socialist revolution?

The proletarian class consciousness maybe was not yet awaken. Therefore, it is the task of the communists, that advanced section of the proletariat, to arouse such consciousness, organize the proletariat as a class and mobilize them to overthrow the already decadent capitalist system. and replace it with communism through socialist revolution and construction.

Any comments?

[Rakshas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:53 AM
My question now is, is this condition still not enough to start a socialist revolution?

I do not think that such condition will help infuse a socialist revolution. We have had such situations in the long course of the 19th and 20th century, like the Great Depression of the 1930s, the economic crises in between, the dramatic collapse of the Asian Tiger Economies, but we did not see workers organising and fomenting a revolution to overthrow the capitalist class. Thanks to bourgeoisie propaganda and failed experiments in USSR and elsewhere, most of the workers (espc. in the Ist world countries) think that socialism/communism is akin to dictatorship, where they would stand to lose whatever freedom they have right now under capitalist regime.

I think, the only solution is to educate the masses about principles and theories of communism and try to pull the viel infront of their eyes. Today, the proletariat has too many distractions and temptations that sway his/her attention from the real issues. 24-hour television, strip clubs, access to pornographic material, brothels, games etc etc. are just distractions to limit the ability of the proletariat to learn and become aware of the burning issues. The time which a person wastes on watching and enjoying these could be utilised to such purposeful activities. The question is how? Media is the only medium through which we can spread our message, but that too is highjacked by vested interests. I think we need to devise other ways to bring the consciouness among the masses and then try to inspire a revolution.

[red_che]

Exactly. Given the conditions I have stated, the communists, through their parties in all countries, must do such education and arousal of the consciousness of the proletariat. This is what I mean to start the revolution.


I think, the only solution is to educate the masses about principles and theories of communism and try to pull the viel infront of their eyes.

True. But not only to educate them on the principles of communism but, most importantly, on the general conditions of the proletariat under the already rotten, decadent capitalist system.


The question is how?

Through a thourough, painstaking propaganda and masswork.


Thanks to bourgeoisie propaganda and failed experiments in USSR and elsewhere

Bourgeois propaganda, yes, it contributed, but the "experiments", I don't think so. I don't think the socialist construction in Russia and China and elsewhere failed. It was modern revisionism that failed. The revisionists, i.e., Kruschev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, etc., stopped socialist construction and went into a capitalist restoration of the Russian and Chinese society, and so they failed.


I think we need to devise other ways to bring the consciouness among the masses and then try to inspire a revolution.

Yeah, this is what I am insisting here at RevLeft.

[Social Greenman]

red_che wrote:


A definite social system is based on its economic foundations, its mode of production which has two elements, the forces of production and its corresponding relations of production. Capitalism has as its primary forces of production, the workers, and modern industry, i.e., the machines and manufacturing, as its means of production or tools for production. Its corresponding relations of production consists of the bourgeoisie as the owner of the tools for production and the means of production and exchange, and the workers selling their labor power for wage, thus they become wage-slaves.

The capitalist forces of production continues to develop as evidenced by its more and more high-tech tools and machineries. This shows that the skills and knowledge of the working class people develops as they go on producing and developing new and more advanced means of production. More and more commodities were produced, at a faster pace.

However, on the other hand of the capitalist mode of production, the relations of production have stagnated and thus, it hinders the further development of the entire capitalist mode of production. As the workers produce more, the capitalist rate of exploitation become even higher, and thus, the wages and the capability of the proletariat to consume its products decreases. The tools for production becomes more and more concentrated at the hands of the monopoly capitalists. As such, more and more surplus products are being dumped and destroyed, thereby creating the capitalist crisis of overproduction. Such crisis becomes ever sharper from the previous and therefore, sharpens more the class contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

My question now is, is this condition still not enough to start a socialist revolution?


I believe that many workers in the U.S. (and Canada?) don't have a clue to being a wage slave let alone that they are exploited for profits. Nor do they understand that the advancements in production are to put them out of work and to increase the labor market and forcing wages down. Workers tend to think of the present economic conditions as "normal" and don't pay too much mind of the exploitation in undeveloped countries. Overall, apathy reigns and self interest rules.

However, I don't believe that workers desire a "vanguard" over them. Workers are turned off by the words communist, Lenin, Stalin, or anything that is considered RED. Another thing, I don't think Leninist have a clue to what to do in an advance industrial society. I write this because when the former USSR achieved the advanced state with the means of production the capitalist class simply took over. It was the desire for profit from the former communist who believed it was their right. Revisionism had nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, educating workers and organizing them is essential but the change in society will come from the workers themselves. To a great degree I agree with the anarchist but I don't believe that going straight from wages to a gift economy is advisable since there will be many workers who would want compensation for work done. The gift economy comes later as a result of socialism. But in the meantime labor time vouchers (LTVs) could be used being that the voucher is full compensation for work done. Unlike the wage system profits are not made. When vouchers are exchanged at the social store; the voucher disappears at the end of the transaction, ie, eliminated. Those at the social store do not recieve those vouchers. Their vouchers are the result of the work done at the store with unloading supplies, stocking shelves and check out. It must be remembered that not all work is equal nor all workers physically the same. Those who receive more per hour in TLVs are the ones who do the boring and physically challenging labor. Otherwise everyone would naturally do tasks that are the easiest to do. It must realized that TLVs not only replaces wages but does away with money altogether. This elimninates the ability of the capitalist to counter the revolution since he/she no longer has any wealth. Looks like they will have to go to work.

As to production: LTVs would reduce over production since there is no longer a profit motive. What is produced would be the result of what is needed. Inventories would be kept at certain levels as to avoid shortages. Also, supplies for disaster relief are kept but rotated with the normal inventory. Workers would fill orders and deliveries would be made. Also, hours would not be an issue since everyone would do whatever work is necessary and have an income. Another thing to be kept in mind is that technologies would continue to advance at a faster rate since profits are no longer the norm for inventions and putting people out of work.

From what I understand, for each hour of work done in the production process there is added about twenty minutes, or more, which become vouchers for those do healthcare, education and social services. Also, a part of those vouchers are put in a fund for supplies of medicines, medical tools, textbooks, and whatever is used in the health and social service field social store exchange. Those items are shipped out to hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes/elderly retirement centers, schools, social services centers, etc. =D

[Revolution67]

Good posts by red_che, Rakshas and Social Greenman. Both Rakshas and Social Greenman have pointed out that proletarians in the First World country are not aware of their exploitation by the capitalist class. Just like a child born to a slave does not know what slavery and freedom is, he naturally thinks that the system he/she is living/working under is the natural course of life and hence he/she should accept it and live. This is sort of a mindset, which we have to pull the proletarian out. Unless we do not do it, we would not see any revolution occuring within our lifespans.

Regarding the "Vanguard", I would say, even though majority of the members would not like the idea, I too have certain reservations about it, BUT..I think the 'Vanguard" is quite intrumental in fomenting a revolution. Just like an army, which is composed of soldiers, artillary men and war planes, in order to gain substantial success with minimum loss, we require a leadership that can think intelligently and apply its tactics where the adverasry has its "weakest link". We have already seen that absence of vanguard has resulted in no organised revolution and still we think that proletariats can organise a insurgency. Had it not been the Vanguard, Soviet Union would not have never existed. To direct the workers/proletarian revolution against the specific class we need to have vanguardian approach. The vanguard should strive to bring all the workers under one umbrella and launch a massive assault on the bourgeoisie. Without an able leadership and random acts of reprisals without concrete and coherent leadership would finally collapse and die its own death. We have seen that once Vanguard has assumed power after the revolution was over and then the protagonists among them became the new oppressors. This happens when someone gains abolsute power to do anything without having to face the consequences of their actions, as they say "Absolute power corrupts one absolutely". In my opinion, after the revolution is over, the "vanguard", which has fulfilled its role of directing the revolution should be disbanded and they should help other people, who are famous for their honesty, integrity, vision and commitment to the cause to take over the reigns and help to lead the society from socialism to communism. Again the transition from socialism to communism might take years of planning, inculcating of right values and a complete change-over of human behavior, so that the transition from socialism to communism is seamless. This might take years and even centuries, but evetually communism would rule the world.

[Social Greenman]

Thank you Rudra for your complements.

Rundra wrote:


Regarding the "Vanguard", I would say, even though majority of the members would not like the idea, I too have certain reservations about it, BUT..I think the 'Vanguard" is quite intrumental in fomenting a revolution. Just like an army, which is composed of soldiers, artillary men and war planes, in order to gain substantial success with minimum loss, we require a leadership that can think intelligently and apply its tactics where the adverasry has its "weakest link". We have already seen that absence of vanguard has resulted in no organised revolution and still we think that proletariats can organise a insurgency. Had it not been the Vanguard, Soviet Union would not have never existed. To direct the workers/proletarian revolution against the specific class we need to have vanguardian approach.

Ever heard the phrase: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?" That pretty much sums up what the Vanguard is. Yes, the Soviet Union once existed but it is now in capitalist hands which I do not need to say much more. And, like I wrote, workers in advanced capitalist countries are turned off completely to the idea of a vanguard and politics in general.

What I have been exploring is that workers should organize along "industrial lines" which the IWW does. Workers have no idea presently that they are wage slaves in the current system so they have to be educated to the possibility of a new social order. That education would have to paint and illustrate what it would look like and how it would function. It has to be simple and easily to grasp otherwise many would lose interest. It must also must be clearly understood that the workers alone would be the ones who make the new society possible independent from any political entity. The eggheads of the movement would counter bourgeouisie propaganda.

There is another thread on council communism which basically states that shops are organized and run by workers on a democratic basis. I believe this would have a lot of appeal to workers. Basically anarchist and the IWW already have this concept. Also, what I have been trying to do is to introduce the concept of labor vouchers. This would be a new economic system which workers, in the new society, would relate to being a tool of compensation for labor done. As Mike Lepore wrote:


New economic systems (feudalism, capitalism, socialism, or other) result in new kind of human consciousness and behavior, but not instantaneously. These changes in people can take at least one generation, and usually more. Just because a point in time is reached when a majority have become socialists, that doesn't mean that habits long conditioned by class divided society can be swept away on the day socialism is adopted. The babies newly born into a socialist world are likely to think and act quite differently from previous generations. Before society can get to that point, it must organize itself to get through a period of several decades in which old habits remain challenges. Socialism would need an institutional form that funcitons within that reality. Vouchers provides the ability to acquire increments in personal property according to the personal motivational responses. It accepts as normal the idea that some people want a lot of material gadgets, and it doesn't need to ostracize them or put peer pressure on them. Individuals are notified by an objective rule that they have to provide the equivlalent input to the economic system, in the form of work.

Also:


Once socialism is instituted, it can gradually test the practice of free distribution of the types of goods, starting with life's necessities and goods which are least likely to be hoarded or to be subjected to irrational individual uses. Socialism can gradually test the use of noncompulsory honor systems for seeing to it that people are willing to perform work. The most important thing is to adopt social ownership and democratic control of the industries, and that system can later be adjusted and perfected.

[red_che]

Sorry for replying just now, I was off for a bit long.


Workers tend to think of the present economic conditions as "normal" and don't pay too much mind of the exploitation in undeveloped countries. Overall, apathy reigns and self interest rules.

This is a condition which the communists must strive to make clear to the workers, that apathy and self interest won't bring the entire working class to anywhere except their continued and ever deepening pathetic and exploited condition.


However, I don't believe that workers desire a "vanguard" over them. Workers are turned off by the words communist, Lenin, Stalin, or anything that is considered RED.

This statement, I'm afraid, is an outright belittling of the intelligence and understanding of the workers. The American working class, as well as of the other advanced countries, are "turned off" by the word "communist", or anything to that effect because of the massive bourgeois propaganda and control of the bourgeoisie on all the means of communication and exchange of communication such as the media, educational institutions, etc. It is the responsibility of the communists, as I have said above and in my previous posts, to arouse the consciousness of the entire working class through painstaking education and masswork.


Another thing, I don't think Leninist have a clue to what to do in an advance industrial society.

I don't believe so. On the contrary, a complete social investigation and class analysis on any society is the key to concluding on what must be done, including in advanced societies such as the USA. A true and genuine Leninist party can do that. However, the RCP is a little short of that, I think.


I write this because when the former USSR achieved the advanced state with the means of production the capitalist class simply took over. It was the desire for profit from the former communist who believed it was their right. Revisionism had nothing to do with it.

Revisionism had everything to do with it. In fact, it was revisionism who did it. It was the revisionist line of thinking and action that made the capitalist class take over the reigns in Russian society. I suggest you take a look at the Great Debate that occurred between the CPSU and the CCP during the 50s to the 60s.


On the other hand, educating workers and organizing them is essential but the change in society will come from the workers themselves.

Yes, it's true. The change ibn society would come from the workers themselves. But who will lead them? Who will direct this movement of the proletariat?

I must say that the vanguard party is not a party above the workers. It is within the working class itself. It is at the core of this working class movement. Its role is to guide the working class movement. Its leadership derives from its ideological leadership of the entire revolutionary movement.

So, the education, organization and mobilization of the working class is done through the ideological guidance of their party, the communist party.

[Connolly]

The proletarian class consciousness maybe was not yet awaken. Therefore, it is the task of the communists, that advanced section of the proletariat, to arouse such consciousness, organize the proletariat as a class and mobilize them to overthrow the already decadent capitalist system

How do you know for sure that it is the duty of the communists (advanced proletarians) to "awaken" the class conciousness of the workers, rather than a particular material condition to come into existance which would naturally develop a class conciousness? in the future of course.

In my opinion, its sort of like saying we have no proof of evolution, therefore god created us. Its jumping to conclusions about something, which we have yet to be seen and understood. Why say it is the duty of the communists when you dont, and cant know whether this is the case.

It sounds very unrealistic for communists to simply create the material conditions for which to start a revolution - if it were the case, could communists have created the material conditions for revolution at any time throughout history, if they had existed? - if they can give a some what false conciousness to the workers, as they have done many a time before?

Communists in general, always seem to claim they know the material conditions are present etc. etc. as if they have been given some divine knowledge about reality. This is absolutely ridiculuos, the truth of the matter is, we dont know - and it is better to wait for a proper understanding of the situation before jumping in with half the information - as has happened throughout the history of the communist movement, were a few "divinley inspired, all knowing" revolutionaries have "sussed" the situation and, finally create a false revolution which leads to economic and social catastrophic failure. We dont have it "sussed" and we dont have perfect knowledge about any situation, the only assumed truth is that of matter, which is true to itself - our perception of how matter works and moves can be obscured in so many ways - therefore, we can not know anything for sure, except our own existance as an individual - hell, I cant even proove to myself that the computer on front of me exists!!! I can only assume.

There is too much surety in the Marxist movement IMO.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
My question now is, is this condition still not enough to start a socialist revolution?

Just look around you in any of the "late capitalist" countries and ask yourself: who cares?

The working classes in these countries are not yet revolutionary. Maybe, in your opinion, they "ought to be"...but the plain fact of the matter is that they are not.

If Marx was right, they will be...at some point in the indefinite future.

To speak of "starting a revolution now" is just babble.


Therefore, it is the task of the communists, that advanced section of the proletariat, to arouse such consciousness, organize the proletariat as a class and mobilize them to overthrow the already decadent capitalist system. and replace it with communism through socialist revolution and construction.

That's what Leninists have always claimed that "they and only they could do".

But they haven't done it. The Stalinists didn't do it; the Trotskyists didn't do it; and the Maoists didn't do it.

In my view, it's because it can't be done.

Proletarian revolution is not something that can be "aroused", "mobilized", "started" or "led".

It emerges spontaneously as a consequence of the collapse of capitalism as a "working system".

You can always tell people that revolution is "the way to go".

But until that message resonates with people's own life experiences, nothing is going to happen.

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

[red_che]

The working classes in these countries are not yet revolutionary. Maybe, in your opinion, they "ought to be"...but the plain fact of the matter is that they are not.

What the fuck! :angry:

You're wrong, they are revolutionary! The working class is a revolutionary class wherever they are. Maybe, they are not aware of that fact yet. That's why their consciousness must be aroused in order for them to act and make a revolution.


If Marx was right, they will be...at some point in the indefinite future.

Marx was always right, the workers are revolutionary from the time capitalism existed and until capitalism is annihilated.

Redstar, I think you ought to review your "revolutionary ideas" if they really are revolutionary. Because as of now, I can see those "ideas" of yours were simply regressive.


To speak of "starting a revolution now" is just babble.

To speak of not starting a revolution now is more babble. It is reactionary, as a matter of fact.


That's what Leninists have always claimed that "they and only they could do".

Show me where Lenin ever said this thing. It might be your own interpretation based on your narrow understanding of Leninism.


Proletarian revolution is not something that can be "aroused", "mobilized", "started" or "led".

Yes it is. If the conditions are there, revolutions are certain to happen, yet it ought to be ignited.


It emerges spontaneously as a consequence of the collapse of capitalism as a "working system".

In the past, it was. It was before capitalism arose, when production was very backward. But now, in the advent of modern industry and high technology where production of commodities and services are highly organized, relying to spontaneity cannot move society into its higher stage of development. Everything, including a revolution, must be highly organized.


How do you know for sure that it is the duty of the communists (advanced proletarians) to "awaken" the class conciousness of the workers, rather than a particular material condition to come into existance which would naturally develop a class conciousness? in the future of course.

You didn't get what I mean, really. The conditions are there, such conditions must be made aware to the workers, because as of now, the workers are still blinded by that glorious bourgeois propaganda of a better life under capitalism.

How do I know of the duty of the communists to awaken the class consciousness of the workers? Well, it just fell from the sky :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
What the fuck! :angry:

What indeed. Does it really upset you when I "rain on your parade"?

This is a message board, not a "vanguard party". You are completely at liberty to go out at this very moment and call for "proletarian revolution right now".

Gather a small group of like-minded folks and take over a radio station. Proclaim the insurrection!

And see what happens. :lol:


The working class is a revolutionary class wherever they are.

No, it's a revolutionary class only when it acts like one.

Your statement is metaphysical.


Show me where Lenin ever said this thing.

The "leading role of the party" is the core axiom of Leninism as a paradigm.

And it logically follows that every word of Lenin and his followers on this subject refers to themselves.

They all agree that successful proletarian revolution without a "vanguard party" is "impossible".


If the conditions are there, revolutions are certain to happen, yet it ought to be ignited.

Hope you brought plenty of matches. :lol:


Everything, including a revolution, must be highly organized.

Ok, go give it a try. :lol:

As has been said, experience is a hard school but a fool will have no other.


How do I know of the duty of the communists to awaken the class consciousness of the workers? Well, it just fell from the sky.

I suspect more earthly origins...in the lower portion of your gastro-intestinal tract, to be precise.

But if you think that class consciousness is something that can be "awakened", you are perfectly free to "sound the alarm".

I rather expect that your Maoist rhetoric will simply result in deeper slumber for the working class...Mao is a terrific remedy for insomnia. :)

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

[red_che]

What indeed. Does it really upset you when I "rain on your parade"?

This is a message board, not a "vanguard party". You are completely at liberty to go out at this very moment and call for "proletarian revolution right now".

Gather a small group of like-minded folks and take over a radio station. Proclaim the insurrection!

And see what happens.

Hah!

Now you want me to get out of this board?

Well, sorry. As you say, this is a message board so I will kepp on posting my comments.

I'm upset really when you said that the working class isn't a revolutionary class. Now, you were showing your true character as a non-revolutionary.


No, it's a revolutionary class only when it acts like one.

See?

So, if they're not a revolutionary class, they are reactionaries then?


As has been said, experience is a hard school but a fool will have no other.

Definitely, experience is a hard school, but the best school it is. And based on my little experience so far, as I belong to a revolutionary movement engaged in a revolutionary confrontation with the cappies teeth-to-teeth, face-to-face, well, the revolution is really ongoing. While you, who keeps on denying such reality, can't be much of an authority regarding the issue of revolution since, I guess, you are not involved in it, in the first place. So, how can you know what revolution really is?


The "leading role of the party" is the core axiom of Leninism as a paradigm.

And it logically follows that every word of Lenin and his followers on this subject refers to themselves.

They all agree that successful proletarian revolution without a "vanguard party" is "impossible".

C&#39;mon. Don&#39;t keep on inflating your own idea and interpretaion, since your interpretation of Leninism is very narrow and unfounded. As I have said, show me where did Lenin ever said of such a thing as "the vanguard party can do all the chores in the revolution, and they can do it alone", show me where did he say this, redstar. <_<

While I agree that a proletarian revolution cannot succeed without its vanguard party, it is not tantamount to say that the vanguard party will do it all. Its role will be just to lead, to guide, to direct. In the end, it is the entire working class who does the winning.

[Social Greenman]

This is a condition which the communists must strive to make clear to the workers, that apathy and self interest won&#39;t bring the entire working class to anywhere except their continued and ever deepening pathetic and exploited condition.


That would be hard at the present since workers needs are met to some degree with wages and social services. Don&#39;t forget liquor, sports, and porn which causes more blindness than a person being spiritual. Life is general is getting hard and with rising prices people can not make ends meets as they once used too. They will start looking for an alternative to their economic condition. They may even steal from each other and blame each other for their condition. But, will they ever consider that the capitalist class is the source of their misery?


This statement, I&#39;m afraid, is an outright belittling of the intelligence and understanding of the workers. The American working class, as well as of the other advanced countries, are "turned off" by the word "communist", or anything to that effect because of the massive bourgeois propaganda and control of the bourgeoisie on all the means of communication and exchange of communication such as the media, educational institutions, etc. It is the responsibility of the communists, as I have said above and in my previous posts, to arouse the consciousness of the entire working class through painstaking education and masswork.

Yes, I do understand the propaganda that oozes from print to talking heads. It will take more than just pointing out exploitation and the theft of worker&#39;s labor. Something has to be offered that will be seen as having more value than the present economic system. That is why I write of TLVs. Of course it going to take more than just Leninist to educate workers (though I must admit that there are very ntelligent Leninist). It&#39;s going to take a coalition of the Left. But first they have to come to a consensus on "what is to be done in the 21st centurey?"


Revisionism had everything to do with it. In fact, it was revisionism who did it. It was the revisionist line of thinking and action that made the capitalist class take over the reigns in Russian society. I suggest you take a look at the Great Debate that occurred between the CPSU and the CCP during the 50s to the 60s.

I really don&#39;t care if it was revisionism or not since this is not Russia I am living in. We cannot change the past either. Besides, the damage has been done. What was is now used by the bourgeoisie as propaganda as the "Evil Empire." Therefore a new approach is needed. A new econonomic plan that will get the attention of the workers.

[red_che]

That would be hard at the present since workers needs are met to some degree with wages and social services.

Yeah, really hard. And it was made harder by people like redstar who doesn&#39;t want to arouse the working class consciousness and instead proposes for us to wait for a hundred years or maybe a thousand years just so capitalism would exhaust all the resources of earth and come into its limitations before the workers should act and overthrow it.

But that is the challenge facing all communists. And what better time to start it than now, and what better place than here, as the song of Rage Against the Machine says.


Yes, I do understand the propaganda that oozes from print to talking heads. It will take more than just pointing out exploitation and the theft of worker&#39;s labor. Something has to be offered that will be seen as having more value than the present economic system.....

I really don&#39;t care if it was revisionism or not since this is not Russia I am living in. We cannot change the past either. Besides, the damage has been done. What was is now used by the bourgeoisie as propaganda as the "Evil Empire." Therefore a new approach is needed. A new econonomic plan that will get the attention of the workers.

But I would rather say that the socialist revolution in Russia or China did not fail, it was only interrupted by those revisionists. And it needs to be completed before any conclusion would be drawn out of it.

And, redstar, I am waiting for your response. :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
So, if they&#39;re not a revolutionary class, they are reactionaries then?

That happens. :(

Consider American working class support for Christian Fascism and America&#39;s imperial adventures abroad.

Or consider that portion of the German working class that actually supported the Nazis.

In a period of reform, the working class is mostly reformist -- the U.S. during the 30s and 40s, for example.

Much of the time, the working class is simply apathetic...they don&#39;t act on "the stage of history" much at all.

As I&#39;ve had occasion to remark before, the "normal state" of a class society is one in which class struggle only takes place "in the background" and at a "very low level".

We don&#39;t know why that changes...but we know it does change.

It can certainly be said that nothing changes as a consequence of a small group of Leninist nannies nagging the working class to "be more revolutionary".


And based on my little experience so far, as I belong to a revolutionary movement engaged in a revolutionary confrontation with the cappies teeth-to-teeth, face-to-face, well, the revolution is really ongoing.

Sounds like you&#39;re having a good time playing "revolutionary" paint-ball. :lol:


Its role will be just to lead, to guide, to direct.

As if proletarian revolution was a blockbuster movie with lots of big crowd scenes and special effects.

The Lords of the Dialectic coming soon to a theater near you. :lol:

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

[KC]

You&#39;re wrong, they are revolutionary&#33; The working class is a revolutionary class wherever they are. Maybe, they are not aware of that fact yet. That&#39;s why their consciousness must be aroused in order for them to act and make a revolution.


If the working class was revolutionary right now then they would revolt. Since they are not revolting, and that many proletarians don&#39;t even consider it, they are not revolutionary at this time.



Marx was always right, the workers are revolutionary from the time capitalism existed and until capitalism is annihilated.


Marx argued that there will always be conflict between the two classes as long as class society exists. This does not have to be revolutionary conflict, as it isn&#39;t right now.



To speak of not starting a revolution now is more babble. It is reactionary, as a matter of fact.


To speak of starting a revolution now is even more babble&#33; It is pointless, as capitalism will fall only when economics dictate it to.



Yes it is. If the conditions are there, revolutions are certain to happen, yet it ought to be ignited.


Unfortunately, the conditions aren&#39;t there. The conditions are dictated by economics, which are unchangeable. In fact, if you want to bring about proletarian revolution faster, you would be encouraging increasing the means of production&#33;



In the past, it was. It was before capitalism arose, when production was very backward. But now, in the advent of modern industry and high technology where production of commodities and services are highly organized, relying to spontaneity cannot move society into its higher stage of development. Everything, including a revolution, must be highly organized.


In the past? Marxist economics was written in a capitalist society. Proletarian revolution will only occur when the rate of profit becomes low enough, as a cause of the massive amounts of the means of production, thereby making it very difficult for any proletarian to lead a normal life. The advent of modern industry and high technology brings us closer to revolution&#33; Spontaneity can and will happen, as the proletarian class consciousness will be aroused by the material conditions naturally created by capitalism. You really need to read up on Marxist economics, as you have repeatedly proven that you have no understanding of it whatsoever.



You didn&#39;t get what I mean, really. The conditions are there, such conditions must be made aware to the workers, because as of now, the workers are still blinded by that glorious bourgeois propaganda of a better life under capitalism.

How do I know of the duty of the communists to awaken the class consciousness of the workers? Well, it just fell from the sky rolleyes.gif

But the conditions aren&#39;t there&#33; You are foolish to believe so. Your anti-Marxist crap is really getting old.



I&#39;m upset really when you said that the working class isn&#39;t a revolutionary class. Now, you were showing your true character as a non-revolutionary.

Saying the working class isn&#39;t revolutionary at this time does not make anyone a "non-revolutionary". On the contrary, as he is pointing to the right answer, you are more at fault than he is. How do you prove that the working class is revolutionary at this time? Please, back up your mystical statement with some material evidence. We can easily prove our claim; the working class isn&#39;t revolutionary now because they aren&#39;t acting revolutionary now. So where&#39;s your proof?




See?

So, if they&#39;re not a revolutionary class, they are reactionaries then?

Revolutionary and reactionary aren&#39;t opposites, nor is this a black and white situation as you would love for it to be. If they&#39;re not revolutionary, then they&#39;re not revolutionary&#33; That&#39;s it&#33; It doesn&#39;t make them reactionary to not be revolutionary, nor is it reactionary to point it out. The working class simply isn&#39;t revolutionary right now. Will it be in the future? Undoubtedly. But that doesn&#39;t mean that it always is.



That would be hard at the present since workers needs are met to some degree with wages and social services. Don&#39;t forget liquor, sports, and porn which causes more blindness than a person being spiritual. Life is general is getting hard and with rising prices people can not make ends meets as they once used too. They will start looking for an alternative to their economic condition. They may even steal from each other and blame each other for their condition. But, will they ever consider that the capitalist class is the source of their misery?

Life in general is getting harder because of the development of capitalism. And as capitalism continues on its path of destruction it will continue to bring the means of production and capital into the hands of fewer and fewer hands. The classes are polarizing now and as a result a definite proletariat and bourgeoisie are starting to come into existance as visibly seperate entities. This is what Marxist economics dictates will happen, and because of this the proletariat will have no choice but to revolt against the bourgeoisie. This is because, if there is no revolution, and the proletariat allows capitalist society to continue, we will see the same thing happening. The means of production and capital will continue to be in fewer people&#39;s hands until eventually the proletariat have nothing. The proletariat need to revolt, and they will revolt when the time is right.



Yeah, really hard. And it was made harder by people like redstar who doesn&#39;t want to arouse the working class consciousness and instead proposes for us to wait for a hundred years or maybe a thousand years just so capitalism would exhaust all the resources of earth and come into its limitations before the workers should act and overthrow it.


The working class consciousness will be aroused by capitalism itself. Being determines consciousness. Capitalism doesn&#39;t have to exhaust all resources and its limitations are much lower than you believe them to be. Your lack of understanding of Marxism and Marxist economics just goes to show how unfounded your weak opinion is. I suggest you read Marx&#39;s Kapital for Beginners to get a better understanding of what Marxist economics is like. It&#39;s written very simple and in comic form so people like you can even understand it&#33; It&#39;s also rather short, so your attention span should be able to handle it.

[Social Greenman]

QUOTE

>>That would be hard at the present since workers needs are met to some degree with wages and social services. Don&#39;t forget liquor, sports, and porn which causes more blindness than a person being spiritual. Life is general is getting hard and with rising prices people can not make ends meets as they once used too. They will start looking for an alternative to their economic condition. They may even steal from each other and blame each other for their condition. But, will they ever consider that the capitalist class is the source of their misery?<<


Life in general is getting harder because of the development of capitalism. And as capitalism continues on its path of destruction it will continue to bring the means of production and capital into the hands of fewer and fewer hands. The classes are polarizing now and as a result a definite proletariat and bourgeoisie are starting to come into existance as visibly seperate entities. This is what Marxist economics dictates will happen, and because of this the proletariat will have no choice but to revolt against the bourgeoisie. This is because, if there is no revolution, and the proletariat allows capitalist society to continue, we will see the same thing happening. The means of production and capital will continue to be in fewer people&#39;s hands until eventually the proletariat have nothing. The proletariat need to revolt, and they will revolt when the time is right.

Yes, but the question remains whether or not the proletariet will revolt. Perhap they will turn to barbarism instead. It is pretty clear to me these days with what workers I work with blame everything on other workers. There is a hatred of Mexicans because they steal American jobs as my co-workers would say. They refuse to listen to reason when it is pointed out that the capitalist class is using the race card to divide and conquer. Then you have racist forums, radio and television personalities that feed the fuel of blaming the victim and promote racial hatred. On the other hand, speaking of Marxist constructs gets you the middle finger. Makes me wonder if the facist are going to win the internet cold war. <_<

[KC]

Yes, but the question remains whether or not the proletariet will revolt. Perhap they will turn to barbarism instead.

But they can&#39;t turn to barbarism. As the means of production and capital are accumulated by a smaller amount of people, the proletariat will become poorer and poorer. Even if they choose barbarism, they will have to eventually revolt or they will die.

[red_che]

For redstar:


Consider American working class support for Christian Fascism and America&#39;s imperial adventures abroad.

Or consider that portion of the German working class that actually supported the Nazis.

I doubt your saying that the American working class have supported America&#39;s imperial wars abroad. Consider the working class mobilizations against the US wars on Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, etc. These mobilizations were huge and gigantic and were never equaled in the past. Weren&#39;t these an act of revolutionary class? Such mobilizations were made not only in America but everywhere in the world.

And more recently, the strike on the subways. That maybe a reformist on the outside appearance, but it clearly demonstrates that the working class is on its track to fulfilling their role in history, that is to be the leading class in the revolution.

If you would still consider that a non-revolutionary action by the working class well, I can&#39;t argue anymore on your continued non-revolutionary thought. :(


In a period of reform, the working class is mostly reformist -- the U.S. during the 30s and 40s, for example.

Much of the time, the working class is simply apathetic...they don&#39;t act on "the stage of history" much at all.

I disagree.

The working class has been and is now acting on its revolutionary character. The Paris Commune, The October 1917 Revolution, and many other revolutions in the capitalist countries and in the semi-feudal societies alike.

And on a more contemporary period, the mass mobilizations in different parts of the world by the proletariat against the US war on Vietnam and the more recent, Iraq, were such a display of the revolutionary character of the proletariat.


Sounds like you&#39;re having a good time playing "revolutionary" paint-ball.

Yeah, it&#39;s definitely more fun than pretending to be a revolutionary even in words only, like you. :lol:

For Lazar:


If the working class was revolutionary right now then they would revolt. Since they are not revolting, and that many proletarians don&#39;t even consider it, they are not revolutionary at this time

Read my replies to redstar.


Marx argued that there will always be conflict between the two classes as long as class society exists. This does not have to be revolutionary conflict, as it isn&#39;t right now.

Read your Marxism again. You seem to be confused.


To speak of starting a revolution now is even more babble&#33; It is pointless, as capitalism will fall only when economics dictate it to.

Again, read your Marxism very well. I suggest you read the Manifesto of the Communist Party several times, from cover to cover. And Das Kapital.


Unfortunately, the conditions aren&#39;t there. The conditions are dictated by economics, which are unchangeable. In fact, if you want to bring about proletarian revolution faster, you would be encouraging increasing the means of production&#33;

Same as what I have stated above, read your Marxism very well.


In the past? Marxist economics was written in a capitalist society. Proletarian revolution will only occur when the rate of profit becomes low enough, as a cause of the massive amounts of the means of production, thereby making it very difficult for any proletarian to lead a normal life. The advent of modern industry and high technology brings us closer to revolution&#33; Spontaneity can and will happen, as the proletarian class consciousness will be aroused by the material conditions naturally created by capitalism. You really need to read up on Marxist economics, as you have repeatedly proven that you have no understanding of it whatsoever.

Did you actually read the first post in this thread? And did you follow the succeeding responses?


Saying the working class isn&#39;t revolutionary at this time does not make anyone a "non-revolutionary". On the contrary, as he is pointing to the right answer, you are more at fault than he is. How do you prove that the working class is revolutionary at this time? Please, back up your mystical statement with some material evidence. We can easily prove our claim; the working class isn&#39;t revolutionary now because they aren&#39;t acting revolutionary now. So where&#39;s your proof?

Do you really understand what you have just posted here?


Revolutionary and reactionary aren&#39;t opposites, nor is this a black and white situation as you would love for it to be.

Really? Hahaha... You are starting to make me laugh... :D


The working class consciousness will be aroused by capitalism itself. Being determines consciousness. Capitalism doesn&#39;t have to exhaust all resources and its limitations are much lower than you believe them to be. Your lack of understanding of Marxism and Marxist economics just goes to show how unfounded your weak opinion is. I suggest you read Marx&#39;s Kapital for Beginners to get a better understanding of what Marxist economics is like. It&#39;s written very simple and in comic form so people like you can even understand it&#33; It&#39;s also rather short, so your attention span should be able to handle it.

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

You really didn&#39;t follow the discussions here. You&#39;re like a dog who just went on barking even when it doesn&#39;t know what it is barking at. :lol:

[Chrysalis]

Good discussion on what it means to be "revolutionary" in marxist sense.

I agree with Redstar and Lazar on why laborers aren&#39;t revolting right now. Marx did talk about the material elements of a complete revolution, namely 1) the existing productive forces, and 2) formation of a revolutionary mass. Note that these conditions must manifest worldwide, in what he calls the world-market. Which means only when laborers have been connected, or have acquired a character that can be called universal, and that productive forces of all nations/countries have been been linked together.

To be sure, Marx does acknowledge the periodically recurring revolutionary convulsion, but again, it all depends on whether the conditions above are satisfied for it to materialize and actually be successful.

Note also that Marx keeps on emphasizing the words "mass", "totality", "all at once", "simultaneously", "world-market", and "universal" implying the massive, complete, and whole-sale character of the revolution.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Rudra
Just like an army, which is composed of soldiers, artillery, men and war planes, in order to gain substantial success with minimum loss, we require a leadership that can think intelligently and apply its tactics where the adversary has its "weakest link".

That&#39;s the Leninist assumption...that the working class are "soldiers" who "need" experienced officers to tell them what to do.

Is that true?

Because if it&#39;s not true, then the whole case for Leninism collapses in ruins.

In my opinion, of course, it&#39;s not true. Modern proletarians are not a "rabble" of illiterate superstitious "factory hands" of the sort that Lenin tried to organize...much less a bunch of peasants looking for a "good emperor" like Mao.

And they will be even less amenable to the "vanguard" approach as time passes. I know a hell of a lot more than my father did...just as he knew a hell of a lot more than my grandfather did. And there plenty of kids on this board who know a hell of a lot more than I did when I was their age.

With every passing generation, the proletariat knows more and becomes more fit to rule.

And less and less in need of a small elite of middle-class "leaders" to "give us our marching orders".

Which might, in passing, serve to explain the noticeably desperate tone of Leninist rhetoric on this board. They "sense" the end of their "special role" in history...and they don&#39;t like that one bit. :lol:

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

[KC]

Again, read your Marxism very well. I suggest you read the Manifesto of the Communist Party several times, from cover to cover. And Das Kapital.

It is you that is confused&#33;


Originally posted by [email protected] p.173, Penguin Classics
This, however, requires that society possess a material foundation, or a series of material conditions of existence, whichin their turn are the natural and spontaneous product of a long and tormented historical development.


Do you really understand what you have just posted here?


Completely.

[red team]

And they will be even less amenable to the "vanguard" approach as time passes. I know a hell of a lot more than my father did...just as he knew a hell of a lot more than my grandfather did. And there plenty of kids on this board who know a hell of a lot more than I did when I was their age.

With every passing generation, the proletariat knows more and becomes more fit to rule.

True, but that&#39;s only because North American workers benefitted greatly from the post world war 2 boom when industrialized North American countries like Canada and the U.S. were economic giants from the fact that everybody else on the planet was blown to rubble.

The Capitalists of those countries could afford to pay for relatively generous social programs like public education without affecting their profits that much which were pretty much guaranteed by the fact that everybody else&#39;s factories were bombed to bits.

That&#39;s not true now. Everybody has rebuilt since the war and competition is global. The actual heavy industry part of the American economy has been shrinking as the industial base have been offshored to countries with cheaper labour.

Just to give you an idea of how far things have regressed, the Ford motor company relies on its financial arm to post its profit of &#036;2 billoin dollars. The North American industrial operations of Ford actually posted a loss of &#036;1.6 billion dollars. The financial "industry" does nothing, but encourages market speculation and gambling. These are not materially productive industries and they add no real material wealth to the economy. An economy that relies on financial speculation to keep itself afloat is an economy that is in trouble.

Seeing that this is what is actually going on in the economy things will get worse and the economy will take on an ever parasitic nature with no actual wealth being produced. They will attempt to asset strip everything including public services like education because it will be unprofitable relative to global competitors to actually do anything materially productive. This is already happening with a fierce attack to destroy public education and replace it with a private system.

Just to be clear I&#39;m not advocating one approach over another. I don&#39;t really care that much if revolution is lead or breaks out from spontaneity on the part of the workers. If it is spontaneous its all the better because the working class will show more initiative to take things into their own hands.

But I&#39;m pessimistic as to the actual course of real world events favoring some sort of spontaneous uprising if this uprising doesn&#39;t happen within the next 10 years. For one thing I expect the North American economy to increasingly cannibalize itself when it decays because being materially productive is unprofitable. There will actually be less workers and less students because both factories and (public) schools will be shut down. If that&#39;s the case then the scenario of a working class increasingly gaining knowledge and an understanding to run society after its overthrown might not happen as anticipated. :o

[red_che]

Chrysalis:


Marx did talk about the material elements of a complete revolution, namely 1) the existing productive forces, and 2) formation of a revolutionary mass.

I think this seems to be a rather incomplete explanation. Can you elaborate it further?

In my understanding, the necessary conditions for a revolution to begin are these: first, the productive forces no longer correspond with the existing relations of production; second, a new and emerging society is already in the offing as evidenced by the relations of production becoming a hindrance to the further development of the old society; and third, the relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have reached that point of irreconcilability, thus the emergence of class contradictions. Such conditions are already present in the most advanced capitalist societies today such as the US, and western Europe.


Note that these conditions must manifest worldwide, in what he calls the world-market.

If you&#39;re talking of achieving communism, yes, this may be true. That would be possible if the proletariat in most countries were already successful in building socialism. But, on a country-to-country basis, a socialist revolution must first be waged.


Which means only when laborers have been connected, or have acquired a character that can be called universal, and that productive forces of all nations/countries have been been linked together.

But in the meantime, what the proletariat in every country must do first is liberate themselves from their own local bourgeoisie while simultaneously trying to link up and get connected with the proletariat of other countries.


Note also that Marx keeps on emphasizing the words "mass", "totality", "all at once", "simultaneously", "world-market", and "universal" implying the massive, complete, and whole-sale character of the revolution.

Of equal emphasis also done by Marx was the organization of the proletariat as a class by establishing their own political party.

Lazar:


It is you that is confused&#33;

Okay, tell me where is that part that I got confused, as you claim.

Redstar:


That&#39;s the Leninist assumption...that the working class are "soldiers" who "need" experienced officers to tell them what to do.

Well actually, the only person I know who keeps on making assumptions in this forum is you.

[Chrysalis]

Marx did talk about the material elements of a complete revolution, namely 1) the existing productive forces, and 2) formation of a revolutionary mass.~Chrysalis

I think this seems to be a rather incomplete explanation. Can you elaborate it further?

Okay. I&#39;ll try. I&#39;m still new to this :)

The two conditions above are really contradictions to each other, in the marxist sense. Remember that in the old society, the individuals are themselves the productive forces----there is no separation or alienation between the individuals acting, connected to each other by their mode of producing things, and what they make, how they make these things. These productive forces have now taken a different shape or structure or, in Marx&#39;s word, form under the capitalist society. The individuals have now become the proletariat, the propertyless mass, and the "productive forces" have now become the capitalists&#39; private property, or rather, coming from the (capitalist) private property. Hence, the phrase "existing productive forces" refers to the private property independent of the laborers themselves, hence a "contradiction" in terms, of a marxist conception.


Such conditions are already present in the most advanced capitalist societies today such as the US, and western Europe.
This is, perhaps, the gist of why Marxian reformists and revisionists have something significant to say, afterall. The existence of these conditions, and to what extent they are strong enough to cause a mass revolution, not to mention if they&#39;ve already acquired an international or universal character, have been the subject of debate on why violent revolution is perhaps not the way to go. These conditions are debatable, not what Marx would call an empirical fact. At least not just yet. Because it is true that the capitalists have been making concessions to alleviate the perceived, or felt, deprivation or disparity between them and the workers.


a socialist revolution must first be waged.
So, we&#39;ve been referring to two different types of revolt. I was referring to communist revolution, as Marx would have it. In fact, what is a socialist revolution?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red team
For one thing I expect the North American economy to increasingly cannibalize itself when it decays because being materially productive is unprofitable. There will actually be less workers and less students because both factories and (public) schools will be shut down. If that&#39;s the case then the scenario of a working class increasingly gaining knowledge and an understanding to run society after it&#39;s overthrown might not happen as anticipated.

Don&#39;t forget the internet. :D

Otherwise, I must admit that you could be right. We could end up in a situation where a tiny educated elite rule over a sub-human mass of starving barbarians...if they even bother to rule them at all.

Will a modern proletariat, even as it exists now, consent to being reduced to barbarism?

I think it unlikely...but I could be wrong. :(

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

[red_che]

The two conditions above are really contradictions to each other, in the marxist sense. Remember that in the old society, the individuals are themselves the productive forces----there is no separation or alienation between the individuals acting, connected to each other by their mode of producing things, and what they make, how they make these things. These productive forces have now taken a different shape or structure or, in Marx&#39;s word, form under the capitalist society. The individuals have now become the proletariat, the propertyless mass, and the "productive forces" have now become the capitalists&#39; private property, or rather, coming from the (capitalist) private property. Hence, the phrase "existing productive forces" refers to the private property independent of the laborers themselves, hence a "contradiction" in terms, of a marxist conception.

I got your point here. But what I am asking is that whether such condition is the necessary element in order to have a social revolution. What you have stated here is the general condition in a capitalist society. And that even in the elementary stage of capitalism, it already happens. But is that enough to start a revolution? I think not.

Again, I must repeat this once more, that the necessary conditions for a revolution to errupt in the society are these: contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production, contradiction between the old and the new, and class contradiction. Such conditions were the point where the capiatlist society reached its decadent stage. And such condition is true with the US today.


This is, perhaps, the gist of why Marxian reformists and revisionists have something significant to say, afterall. The existence of these conditions, and to what extent they are strong enough to cause a mass revolution, not to mention if they&#39;ve already acquired an international or universal character, have been the subject of debate on why violent revolution is perhaps not the way to go.

The reformists and revisionists were, in fact, not advocating a revolutionary method of ending capitalism. The Trotskyites also do not advocate social revolution. And I consider Trotskyism revisionist. The universal character of the revolution comes along while the proletariat wages revolution in their own countries. And when a significant portion of the globe were already liberated from capitalism or have established socialism, such can be the time when communism can materialize.


In fact, what is a socialist revolution?

Lenin, in the State and revolution, quoted Marx as saying this:

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

That revolutionary transformation is what I am referring to here as socialist revolution.

[Chrysalis]

Hi red che:


I got your point here. But what I am asking is that whether such condition is the necessary element in order to have a social revolution. What you have stated here is the general condition in a capitalist society. And that even in the elementary stage of capitalism, it already happens. But is that enough to start a revolution? I think not.
Oh, okay. I need to explain it further then. Having said that the two conditions are really contradictions to each other, and you acknowledging that this is so, then the next thing to understand is---this is the contradiction that Marx had in mind when he said that a mass uprising would ensue due to the presence of these conditions (or this contradiction). Depending, of course, on the degree that these two oppose each other.

The two elements are related to each other by this: they exists as antagonistic factors against each other, but both exist necessarily, meaning, under the modern private property, if 1) "productive forces" exist, then 2) a class of proletariat must necessarily exist. What Marx want us to see with this seemingly simple conception is the logic: he wants us to see it as tautology. One implies the other. He wants us to see this implication: the presence of a class of proletariat implies the presence of (capitalistic) productive forces, and that the presence of (capitalistic) productive forces implies the presence of a class of proletariat.

And yes, the capitalist economy and rule will provide these conditions (&#33;). I think Lazar or Redstar, or someone else, has already explained this: it is the capitalistic society, in its very successful performance, that can bring about the contradictions necessary for a proletarian revolution. Ironic&#33; But Marx wants us to grasp this: The more the capitalist economy is successful, the greater the contradictions it creates.



The reformists and revisionists were, in fact, not advocating a revolutionary method of ending capitalism.
Hence, why I said this: This is, perhaps, the gist of why Marxian reformists and revisionists have something significant to say, afterall. The existence of these conditions........have been the subject of debate on why violent revolution is perhaps not the way to go.

But I will restate what I said again: The revisionists and reformists disagree with Marx&#39;s violent revolution due to the developments and changes within the capitalistic rule. Concessions have been made by the capitalists, due the realization that the workers are increasingly becoming aware of their situations, hence their increasing participation in the democratic process, hence the capitalists grumbling, followed by measures and policies to appease the workers. The capitalists are doing something to limit these contradictions that they&#39;ve created in the frst place.


[P.S. I find bolding some words hepful to explain important points, as demonstrated by Redstar, so I hope you&#39;re not put off by my bolding. :) ]

[ernesto]

Dear comrades;
I have learned much from the forums but I am still an infant relative to all of this theory. However, it really intrigues me and I want to learn all I can. Perhaps as a newcomer I can relate some perspective that might be fresh and hopefully somewhat intelligent at the same time.Many of the members talked of strategies to unite the oppressed workers in a capitalist country like I&#39;m from (U.S.). Someone was right on target when they talked about too many amusements and various ways to spend time other than learning important theory.
The only way working-class people in this nation will listen to any of these theories is if face the danger of losing what little they may have. For instance, if on the horizon they see their factory or plant in trouble and find they may lose the job they&#39;ve worked at for 15 years and have no fallback for earning income (because most other factories where they could use their skills have either also been closed or outsourced ---then MAYBE they would give you a chance to relay information to them. People in this nation have only one concern---the size of their wallets. All else is meaningless to them.
That being said, I grew up in an area of the U.S. which has been dead economically for many years and is considered to be a depressed area from almost any standpoint you could imagine--politically, economically, culturally, etc. And I can truthfully say that as more working-class jobs are lost there are more receptive ears to marching to local, state, and federal buildings to at least let politicians know that the numbers of disgusted and disenfranchised are growing by the month.However, if those same individuals were somehow lucky enough to find work again in their field, they would do a rapid-about face and go back to the same circumstances they lived in before.And those who wouldn&#39;t be so lucky to find work would try some other scheme to get rich. They would never consider that their time and energy should be put into fighting to help themselves.
That&#39;s the scenario in a lower working-class area of Pa. where there is no future, optimism of any kind ,or any chance for a better set of circumstances. What a sad state of affairs indeed&#33; ernesto

[KC]

The only way working-class people in this nation will listen to any of these theories is if face the danger of losing what little they may have. For instance, if on the horizon they see their factory or plant in trouble and find they may lose the job they&#39;ve worked at for 15 years and have no fallback for earning income (because most other factories where they could use their skills have either also been closed or outsourced ---then MAYBE they would give you a chance to relay information to them. People in this nation have only one concern---the size of their wallets. All else is meaningless to them.

The proletariat doesn&#39;t need theory to know when to conduct revolution. When material conditions arise they will revolt.

[Bannockburn]

Well in all honesty the revolution in Marxist terms, classical marxism is probably over with. Recall that to have a revolution you first need a revolutionary class. Well the US does not have that. Moreover, there is still a large middle class. The middle class has played a buffer between class struggle, and likewise reduce the potential of a revolutionary class. However, if you look at recent economic reports, US, UN reports there has been a hollowing out of the middle class into two large and hostile camps. Generally when this happens, is when you have a revolution

Second of all, like everything else you need the material, and in this case the lack of the material subsistence to create the potential of a revolution. Marx names some in his German ideology for example. We need that same condition in say the United States, an energy crisis for example.

[Seong]

Rakshas I agree with this


Media is the only medium through which we can spread our message, but that too is highjacked by vested interests.

The bourgeois have a monopoly over the media that needs to be undermined. But it is also becoming easier to produce media independantly as technology becomes more advanced and readily available. Sadly, it&#39;s true that our voice won&#39;t be as loud or as widespread but we&#39;ve got to start building our numbers right?

Also, even thought the revolution isn&#39;t yet at hand we can still work to undermine the dominance of imperialist forces can&#39;t we? This is just a question. I really don&#39;t won&#39;t anyone going off at me. :unsure:

[red_che]

Chrysalis:


Oh, okay. I need to explain it further then. Having said that the two conditions are really contradictions to each other, and you acknowledging that this is so, then the next thing to understand is---this is the contradiction that Marx had in mind when he said that a mass uprising would ensue due to the presence of these conditions (or this contradiction). Depending, of course, on the degree that these two oppose each other.

The two elements are related to each other by this: they exists as antagonistic factors against each other, but both exist necessarily, meaning, under the modern private property, if 1) "productive forces" exist, then 2) a class of proletariat must necessarily exist. What Marx want us to see with this seemingly simple conception is the logic: he wants us to see it as tautology. One implies the other. He wants us to see this implication: the presence of a class of proletariat implies the presence of (capitalistic) productive forces, and that the presence of (capitalistic) productive forces implies the presence of a class of proletariat.

And yes, the capitalist economy and rule will provide these conditions (&#33;). I think Lazar or Redstar, or someone else, has already explained this: it is the capitalistic society, in its very successful performance, that can bring about the contradictions necessary for a proletarian revolution. Ironic&#33; But Marx wants us to grasp this: The more the capitalist economy is successful, the greater the contradictions it creates.

Yeah. Okay.

Now what I am trying to arrive at is this. Such contradiction already exist. In fact, the class contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie sums up all the contradictions of the capitalist society, I mean all those contradictions end up and manifests in the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Since those already exist, the class contradiction that is, why, for example in US, there is no revolution yet? Was it because the American workers were too busy with their own lives that they cannot think to revolt? Or were they getting much from their wages that they don&#39;t feel/see that they were exploited?

Or was it because the American workers don&#39;t have that organization that will educate and arouse their consciousness and organize them as a class?

I think, all has been said already. Even in college communism has been taught (though it may be flawed) and that would provide at least even a hint on the proletariat about exploitation and oppression to them by the bourgeoisie.

What I think really lacks in the American proletarian movement is a political party that would direct and lead the entire proletariat in their struggle against the bourgeoisie. :)

[KC]

Since those already exist, the class contradiction that is, why, for example in US, there is no revolution yet?

Organic composition of capital isn&#39;t high enough. Rate of profit isn&#39;t low enough. Material conditions haven&#39;t arisen yet.

[Chrysalis]

Hi Red che:

Though contradictions are the necessary elements of capitalist society, and as you acknowledge, they do exist at all times in this society, it doesn&#39;t mean they are ripe for a proletariat revolt to erupt. Maybe we can understand it further with this analogy: a woman pregnant at eight months is no less pregnant at one month of pregnancy. And YET, we cannot say she should, and could, and would give birth at one month into this development.

The material conditions necessary for a proletarian revolution are tied with history, hence must undergo natural development. In fact, I think that&#39;s why Lazar calls it organic, implying the natural state of affairs of the impending collapse of the capitalist society.

And the major part, or consequence, of this historical development is the evolving consciousness of the wage-workers.

So, you ask why the time is not ripe for revolt, and you mention three different possible reasons:

"Was it because the American workers were too busy with their own lives that they cannot think to revolt? "

In this case, the political consciousness, or perhaps the class-consciousness, of the American workers are not yet fully developed. If they are thinking of their daily existence, then they are only thinking as disconnected individuals who are under the economic forces they believe they cannot control. Perhaps, we can call them mystified by the whole happening of what&#39;s going on.

"Or were they getting much from their wages that they don&#39;t feel/see that they were exploited?"

The concession that the capitalists make, such as higher wages, create an illusory state of satisfaction or contentment for the workers. And again, the workers&#39; consciousness as far as how the mechanisms of capitalist society work is lacking.

[red_che]

A pregnant woman cannot be used as an analogy to the proletarian revolution. Pregnancy has an exact period while the proletarian revolution doesn&#39;t have a definite timetable.


The material conditions necessary for a proletarian revolution are tied with history, hence must undergo natural development. In fact, I think that&#39;s why Lazar calls it organic, implying the natural state of affairs of the impending collapse of the capitalist society.

And the major part, or consequence, of this historical development is the evolving consciousness of the wage-workers.

I would say that the organization of the proletariat into a class is one of those natural processes in the development of capitalist society, or more precisely, of the proletarian movement. And such organization could uplift the proletarian consciousness. It is organic, not artificial.

The proletarian consciousness develop while they are increasingly organized. Although, I am giving a great deal in this matter, i.e., proletarian consciousness or ideology, I am not saying this is the most important factor. What I want to imply is that this matter is what is lacking now even if it is already well-known that capitalism at present is decaying/decadent.


In this case, the political consciousness, or perhaps the class-consciousness, of the American workers are not yet fully developed. If they are thinking of their daily existence, then they are only thinking as disconnected individuals who are under the economic forces they believe they cannot control. Perhaps, we can call them mystified by the whole happening of what&#39;s going on.

And in this case, the more they are needed to be organized, to be educated and their consciousness be raised.


The concession that the capitalists make, such as higher wages, create an illusory state of satisfaction or contentment for the workers. And again, the workers&#39; consciousness as far as how the mechanisms of capitalist society work is lacking.

That is precisely why I am saying that the revolution cannot erupt and society cannot move forward into a higher level until the proletariat are organized into a class and their consciousness raised and made known of the facts and conditions for which they are into and then act accordingly.


Organic composition of capital isn&#39;t high enough. Rate of profit isn&#39;t low enough.

Can you give data/facts then to back up this claim?

[KC]

Can you give data/facts then to back up this claim?


Well, it&#39;s proven by the fact that the proletariat haven&#39;t revolted yet. :rolleyes:

[Entrails Konfetti]

I honestly haven&#39;t read everyones post, I will try to later today.

But, maybe I&#39;m not adding anything new, however I would like to add some things:

Red_Che stated the contadictions, and asked if they would be enough. Others have stated the word Communism to workers is a turn-off.

The capitalist market can only spread so far, this is a fact&#33; According to this months ISR issue, the world is able to take care of its inhabitants, its just simply amatter of there being a surplus, and it being only available to those who can afford it&#33; So in actuallity there isn&#39;t a surpluss, just a concentration&#33;
With Communist theory this is one of our cornerstones, see my avitar title "the proof is in the pudding".

Now for the word Communism, in feudal socities"free-market" was an ugly word, yet people knew it would happen&#33; They just hadn&#39;t evolved to that. Communist Revolutionaries of the past century knew where we&#39;d evolve, that just didn&#39;t know when, but the working-populous wanted it now. So what the hell can ya do? Lenin gets portrayed as an "evil" man by many westerners, but every new change has its growing pains-- I mean, there was way too much pressure on the Eastern European workers at that time, which would take a ridiculous amount of class consciousness and determination; there were still feudal reminents lingering around. After the civil-war what were the Bolsheviks supposed to say "Oh um were not ready for it"? A whole generation was almost obliterated, the least they could do was spread hope of a better future.

Now that conditions have changed, and that we can learn from the past, we know the mistakes of former movements. We may love our long-gone comrades, but they&#39;d want us to update, and learn from them, if you ask me I&#39;m not a big fan of Democratic-Centrism. All we can do as of now is spread our ideas--especially the idea of how our theory develops, and keep our ideas going, and try to organize. Personally I think conversion isn&#39;t needed, forcing our theory on others isn&#39;t attractive; besides our proof is in the pudding, but we must defend our arguments with facts, and tenacity&#33; Because were factual, we&#39;re attractive.
We must evolve first, and we will&#33; Don&#39;t let the current state of things get you down,Capitalism isn&#39;t evil, its just antiquated (or soon to be)-- good, evil? Everyone and everything has a round character.

Historically: Evolution brings revolution.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I forgot to add something:
What I&#39;m concerned about after the collapse of the free market is the spread in which jobs will combine menial and empowering labour. This needs to be tied in really fast&#33; Without new jobs, there aren&#39;t any foundations for the new society, but the lingering remenants of old: Surplus-population, and surplus goods. How can this be done?

[Chrysalis]

Red che:


A pregnant woman cannot be used as an analogy to the proletarian revolution. Pregnancy has an exact period while the proletarian revolution doesn&#39;t have a definite timetable.
I actually like your objection against my use of analogy, so let&#39;s digress a bit from the topic and have a little talk about the use of analogy.

The pregnancy&#39;s salient connotation here is the natural/normal development or progression. Though its [the pregnancy&#39;s] beginning and end are pretty much expected occurences, that is not the point of this analogy. It&#39;s its progression----its growth and finally its bursting out, or the gestation-----that I was trying to capture. Analogies are not meant to compare two objects or events in all respects or features, only in some respects. After all, an analogy is really a comparison of two dissimilar objects, else why call the two objects analogous, instead of identical? So, my comparison of the conditions of a revolution and the conditions of pregnancy only points to the understanding that both must undergo natural progression or development. This is the connection I wanted you to see.

So, to refute my analogy as invalid because pregnancy has a known termination point while the revolution has no exact date stamped on it is to refute something else that I have not myself endorsed as similar. Point to the fact that pregnancy does not need development or that a revolution does not need development and I will admit error on my part.

My use of analogy here is not to replace reasoning, rather to explain something as abstract as the historical development of a revolution using something else that can be understood more easily.


I would say that the organization of the proletariat into a class is one of those natural processes in the development of capitalist society, or more precisely, of the proletarian movement. And such organization could uplift the proletarian consciousness. It is organic, not artificial.
Here, I can only conclude that you have missed what I said in my post. I referred twice to the word natural: the natural development, the natural state of affairs. Further, I referred to the use of the words organic and historical. Historical, in marxist terms means that there is a natural progression or development of society, including the material and intellectual productions in the lives of the individuals, hence their consciousness must also evolve naturally. Any elements of society, as parts or as result of it, are deemed organic parts, hence the natural components of the historical development of a society. I don&#39;t know where in my post did I mean or imply "artificial".

[red_che]

Chrysalis:

I Have to get back to this point of yours, I think I have overlooked it owing to my overeagerness on organization of the proletariat into a class. Here it is:


And yes, the capitalist economy and rule will provide these conditions (&#33;). I think Lazar or Redstar, or someone else, has already explained this: it is the capitalistic society, in its very successful performance, that can bring about the contradictions necessary for a proletarian revolution. Ironic&#33; But Marx wants us to grasp this: The more the capitalist economy is successful, the greater the contradictions it creates.

As I have said, the contradictions already exist. And to the point of a more violent and destructive contradiction. Now, what I want us to see/recognize is when can this contradiction be ended, and how.

The contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is in their relations in production. The productive forces, i.e. the people involved in the production, their skills and their tools for production (the means of production) contradict the relations of which they are into regarding production. This is true with all the other societies that have existed. But let&#39;s just deal with the capitalist system.

The capitalist productive forces continue to advance. This means that the skills of the workers and their means for producing commodities are advancing. New technologies were created for faster production and lower costs of production. While the productive forces are on an uptrend, the relationships between the owners of production (capitalists) and the producers (workers) are on a downtrend, or at least lag behind. That means the workers are producing more commodities at wages that does not go up. And while new technologies were developed, more workers are laid-off as a consequence. That way, the rate of exploitation on the workers are higher. As a result of that, more workers are living way below the standard living conditions in a capitalist society. That eventually results into crisis. And as have been demonstrated already, since the 20th century, crises broke up violently and ever deeper.

This is what makes the contradictions more and more intensified. And I am speaking here of the global situation.


Here, I can only conclude that you have missed what I said in my post. I referred twice to the word natural: the natural development, the natural state of affairs. Further, I referred to the use of the words organic and historical. Historical, in marxist terms means that there is a natural progression or development of society, including the material and intellectual productions in the lives of the individuals, hence their consciousness must also evolve naturally. Any elements of society, as parts or as result of it, are deemed organic parts, hence the natural components of the historical development of a society. I don&#39;t know where in my post did I mean or imply "artificial".

Now, therefore, the natural development of capitalism can be said to be on its downfall. Nothing is progressing anymore. The living conditions are falling. Big corporations are eating up smaller corporations that loses in the competition. In fact, the biggest corporations competing today were those that were in existence since at least 50-100 years ago, some even older.

And the class organization of the proletariat through a political party is therefore necessary now.

While I am giving a particular emphasis on the American workers, that doesn&#39;t mean that they should be the first to do it. It is just simply because the US is the world&#39;s superpower today and it is the primary defender of Imperialism. So, the American workers&#39; have a lot more responsibility and must be given emphasis.

[Chrysalis]

Red che:


As I have said, the contradictions already exist. And to the point of a more violent and destructive contradiction. Now, what I want us to see/recognize is when can this contradiction be ended, and how.
Yes, the contradictions do exist, due to the fact that we are in a capitalist society (I mentioned this implication two posts ago). So, we agree on this point. But the degree to which the relationship of the workers and the productive forces (capitalist private property) affect each other inversely must also be taken into consideration. The truth is, the workers are already a class. But the realization of this fact must come naturally, meaning, their awareness of what it means to be a class of proletariat whose existence is a necessary product or result of capitalist rule, must also evolve.

We can hold a rally in the university quad tomorrow and tell the audience point by point in what way they are a class, how their class came about, how the capitalist rule must be dismantled in order to emancipate the workers. But at the end of the day, Red, they&#39;re going to go home, and go back to their daily life, and see the "freedom" and wealth around them, and think "Hey, capitalism is not bad after all. Look what it got us, peace and prosperity." Ideology is something that cannot be taught in a semester. It requires almost a rebirth in order to internalize it and make it part of our identity. This is crucial in our awareness of our existence under the capitalist rule.

So, you ask how the contradictions could be ended: the only way contradictions could end is to end the capitalist system.


The capitalist productive forces continue to advance. This means that the skills of the workers and their means for producing commodities are advancing. New technologies were created for faster production and lower costs of production. While the productive forces are on an uptrend, the relationships between the owners of production (capitalists) and the producers (workers) are on a downtrend, or at least lag behind. That means the workers are producing more commodities at wages that does not go up. And while new technologies were developed, more workers are laid-off as a consequence. That way, the rate of exploitation on the workers are higher. As a result of that, more workers are living way below the standard living conditions in a capitalist society. That eventually results into crisis. And as have been demonstrated already, since the 20th century, crises broke up violently and ever deeper.
The problem with putting the issue in terms of wages is, we are still rationalizing the presence of capitalism. Which means, we are stuck in the vantage point of a worker whose awareness for now is, he is a worker and that his limitation lies in the fact that he does not own the capital so he is limited in what he can demand. The problem is we are under the capitalist rule whose presence must necessarily produce a class whose existence is that of an individual who must sell his labor to the owners of the means of production, nothing else. What the revolution wants to accomplish is to do away with the classes altogether and get back to self-activity that would again allow the individuals to be themselves the productive forces, controlling their production, owning their own labor, owning their own means of production. Until the workers grasp this harsh reality, there would be no eruption to overthrow capitalism altogether.





P.S. You bring up really good issues in your last post. I will finish my response tomorrow. Gotta go for now.

[Chrysalis]

Now, therefore, the natural development of capitalism can be said to be on its downfall. Nothing is progressing anymore. The living conditions are falling. Big corporations are eating up smaller corporations that loses in the competition. In fact, the biggest corporations competing today were those that were in existence since at least 50-100 years ago, some even older.
Red, we can argue up and down that capitalism is spiralling down, but without the practical reality that is readily seen or perceived by the majority of the workers, then either we could be accused of just want to sound off and beat our tom toms, or we would be called an isolated group of fanatics who are just bored at the moment.

Ever heard of a dynamic system? I&#39;m not going into too technical an explanation (I won&#39;t be good in explaining it with more than what I can give here), but basically it&#39;s a system with changing variables, some go faster than others, but everything operate in a stable pace, well pretty much. Chaos or eruption or instability sets in when some of the variables become too fast or too slow causing the system to experience a catastrophe. Capitalist society, or other types of society, is one of those dynamic systems in which variables progress or develop overtime, some elements are developing or maturing faster than others, until it experiences a catastrophe. There&#39;s your theory of catastrophe in a nutshell. Believers of catastropher theory believe that the breaking point of a capitalist society is inevitable, it is determined. They can slow it down, or speed it up, but it will eventually come.

Remember the song "You can&#39;t hurry love"? You have to allow the variables to do their work, and that includes allowing the consciousness of the workers to evolve to the point of they can appreciate doing away with all classes, hence doing away with all class struggles. Of course, failed attempts are part of this dynamic system. The workers&#39; consicousness gets stimulated each time.

[red_che]

Chrysalis:

Well, you may have noticed that I am so eager on the issue of organization and the arousal of workers&#39; consciousness.

It is because it is the duty/responsibility of every communist to do that. I am giving emphasis on organization because as the saying goes, "after the priciples and objectives were set, the organization will put it into action" or something like that. :)

I am not hurrying anything, anyway. I was just reminding everybody in this board of the responsibilities of the communists.

And we agree on a certain point. That the workers&#39; awareness of the situation/facts surrounding our society isn&#39;t that high. But I think there is more to be done than just staging a rally in this or that place and speak out our points using loud sound systems. There are more ways than that.

And I think, Lenin&#39;s theories would be very helpful. ;)

[Chrysalis]

Okay. I&#39;m with you. Except about the Lenin bit. :P