What is the leftist glue?

[Ol' Dirty]

What do you think could pull all leftist groups together? We all share a common goal (the defeat of capitalism; the creation of a classless society), yet we all have different views on how to achieve this state. The reason the right is so dominant is mainly because they are so centralized; they have excellent orginization. Now, how could we unite the left in the same fassion?

[Abood]

Unfortunately, that'll never happen. People have different views and always will.
And the rightists arent united. There are many kinds: Liberals, conservatives,.. etc etc.

[ZeroPain]

And the rightists arent united. There are many kinds: Liberals, conservatives,.. etc etc.

They all agree on capitalism, and aslong as they hold power thats all they need.

[loveme4whoiam]

Maybe if there were one huge event that could be openly criticised by all, into which a united Communist movement could step. Although the short answer is there will always be differences of opinion or method, the ultimate goal is the same. I think that that is the "glue" between all members of the left (the real left I mean) - the objective that we all pursue with all our efforts.

[ComradeOm]

What makes you think that the Left will ever stick together? Anarchists and Marxists have fundamentally different ideas on the direction of society post revolution. Further bloodshed is quite possible.

[loveme4whoiam]

:huh: Well, in that case, we should just all give up right now then. If the divisions between the factions of the Left are so strong that bloodshed might be on the cards, then there is no future for the Left.

[Ian]

probably love will bring us together

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:52 PM
:huh: Well, in that case, we should just all give up right now then. If the divisions between the factions of the Left are so strong that bloodshed might be on the cards, then there is no future for the Left.
Personally I highly doubt that the proletariat at the time of revolution will pay any attention to either the Marxists or anarchists. They'll just do what needs to be done.


probably love will bring us together
Because if it's not Love then it's the Bomb that will bring us together

Sticks on the Smiths.

[MiniOswald]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:14 PM
probably love will bring us together
and undoubtedly tear us apart, again...

[loveme4whoiam]

Personally I highly doubt that the proletariat at the time of revolution will pay any attention to either the Marxists or anarchists. They'll just do what needs to be done.
Which is run out onto the street brandishing their favourite blunt implement, bludgeon the windows and heads of anyone they dislike, then wander around until they get bored and go home to have a pie. In the mean time, the government will have been nice and organised and stopped anything real happening.

I, unfortunately, do not share your optimism of the proletariats combined political thinking. How do they know what needs to be done? They are not all going to wake up one morning and think "the oppressive capitalist governments of the world have exploited our labour for too long, now we must rise up and remove them from power". Hell, judging by the working class people that I have grown up with and now work with, we'd be lucky to get them waking up with the thought "that bastard Blair should 'ave 'is 'ead kicked in, time to beat the shit out of anything that disagrees with me."

People need to see an alternative and a direction, not waste their anger in random violence that serves no purpose.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:38 PM
What do you think could pull all leftist groups together? We all share a common goal (the defeat of capitalism; the creation of a classless society), yet we all have different views on how to achieve this state. The reason the right is so dominant is mainly because they are so centralized; they have excellent orginization. Now, how could we unite the left in the same fassion?
The right is not excellntly orgnaized or are they in agreement. You have christian fascists, to atheist libertarians. It's the fact that all those who controll the means of production are not leftists that makes them seem so organized and powerful.

We cant united the left for major differences in theory. Nor would most want to.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:35 AM
I, unfortunately, do not share your optimism of the proletariats combined political thinking. How do they know what needs to be done? They are not all going to wake up one morning and think "the oppressive capitalist governments of the world have exploited our labour for too long, now we must rise up and remove them from power". Hell, judging by the working class people that I have grown up with and now work with, we'd be lucky to get them waking up with the thought "that bastard Blair should 'ave 'is 'ead kicked in, time to beat the shit out of anything that disagrees with me."

People need to see an alternative and a direction, not waste their anger in random violence that serves no purpose.
can someone Pin this. :P

good post, comrade.

[Abood]

They all agree on capitalism, and aslong as they hold power thats all they need.
We all agree on socialism...
but the thing is, we have different views on how to achieve it
and capitalists have different views on capitalism as well.


Well, in that case, we should just all give up right now then. If the divisions between the factions of the Left are so strong that bloodshed might be on the cards, then there is no future for the Left.
I used to be an anarchist myself, until i realized that anarchism will never be achieved.
You know why? because as soon as a government is overthrown, someone with power will come along and decide to take the throne. But in Marxism, and i mean real marxism, the people will unite and attack everyone who tries to take control, and they themselves rule society...dictatorship of the proletariat


Personally I highly doubt that the proletariat at the time of revolution will pay any attention to either the Marxists or anarchists. They'll just do what needs to be done.
If the proletariat know that something can be done, then they would've done it already. We should make them aware that there are alternatives... attainable alternatives that will benefit them. There's no point of overthrowing a government without having a plan beforehand, otherwise another corrupt government will rise and it could be worse.

Can someone please move this to the philosophy section?! This isn't much of nonsense "chit-chat"

[Forward Union]

Hmm, someone requested I move this to philosophy, but maybe this is a thread for theory?

Moved

anyone disagree just let me know! - I have a mind splitting headache, and had little sleep.

[BOZG]

Semen

[Abood]

anyone disagree just let me know! - I have a mind splitting headache, and had little sleep.
Nah, That's fine :) Thanx


Semen
Sure...

[Roses in the Hospital]

Only a very extreme event could pull all segments of the Left together. Something like the rise of a new fascist power would likely pull us all together into it's opposition, though as the Spanish Civil War shows, this 'pulling together' isn't guarenteed to be a successby any stretch of the imagination...

[redstar2000]

Unity on the "Left"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082988280&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Abood]

This thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46694) might help!

[loveme4whoiam]

I used to be an anarchist myself, until i realized that anarchism will never be achieved.
You know why? because as soon as a government is overthrown, someone with power will come along and decide to take the throne. But in Marxism, and i mean real marxism, the people will unite and attack everyone who tries to take control, and they themselves rule society...dictatorship of the proletariat
I'm not an anarchist either, I'm a (I think) Marxist of some kind. Libertarian Marxist I suspect, as I agree with your points in that thread you linked. But my point still stands I think - the Left should be united by the desire for the future that they want. Having said that, RS2K's page says that the divisions of the Left are about what that future should be, not just the methods used. If this truly is the case, then what hope do we have? Capitalists are united (at least, are less divided) because they want this state of affairs to continue, so they already agree on the future for them.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:18 PM
I'm not an anarchist either, I'm a (I think) Marxist of some kind. Libertarian Marxist I suspect,
Well, im playing with words a bit here. But Libertarian Marxist equates to Anarcho Marxist :D so you are an Anarchist, of sorts.

[loveme4whoiam]

Really? Cool - *turns on some Clash* down with the Establishment, etc :P

[Abood]

Well, im playing with words a bit here. But Libertarian Marxist equates to Anarcho Marxist
Anarchist marxists are libertarian marxists, but not not all libertarian marxists are anarchist marxists! And i still dont get the difference between anarcho-marxists and anarchists.


Really? Cool - *turns on some Clash* down with the Establishment, etc
We're all against establishment!!! Well I am atleast!!! DAMN THE ESTABLISHMENT!!! :lol:

[Ol' Dirty]

And the rightists arent united. There are many kinds: Liberals, conservatives,.. etc etc.

They all believe in plutocratic society, right?


They all agree on capitalism, and aslong as they hold power thats all they need.

Exactly.

[Ol' Dirty]

What makes you think that the Left will ever stick together?

Our prime objective is the same; a classless society.


Anarchists and Marxists have fundamentally different ideas on the direction of society post revolution. Further bloodshed is quite possible.

Again, a classless society is the fundemental basic in the left.

[drain.you]

Yeah sure, bloodshed in the future but we want the revolution, surely we could unite long enough to see this through!

[red team]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 26 2006, 10:57 AM

Well, in that case, we should just all give up right now then. If the divisions between the factions of the Left are so strong that bloodshed might be on the cards, then there is no future for the Left.
I used to be an anarchist myself, until i realized that anarchism will never be achieved.
You know why? because as soon as a government is overthrown, someone with power will come along and decide to take the throne. But in Marxism, and i mean real marxism, the people will unite and attack everyone who tries to take control, and they themselves rule society...dictatorship of the proletariat


Economics limits your policy options no matter who's in charge proletariat or no proletariat. Of course depending on who's in charge some policy options will be favored over other policy options, but as stated before your options are limited by your economics.

[Abood]

Economics limits your policy options no matter who's in charge proletariat or no proletariat. Of course depending on who's in charge some policy options will be favored over other policy options, but as stated before your options are limited by your economics.
Can you please explain what you mean by that?

[barista.marxista]

Libertarian and Authoritarian leftists will forever be in conflict until one prevails. The statists had their chance, and history has shown their ideology to be incorrect. The only way to unite the left is to unite the libertarians (the anarchists, the left-communists, the councilists, the libertarian socialists, etc.), realize that there is no difference between anarchism and authentic Marxism in today's mode of production, oppose authoritarianism whether it's under the guise of fascism or "communism", lead through example and collective organization, and prepare ourselves for when the material conditions are ripe.

[Body Count]

Why should we WANT to have "glue"?

When and If the time ever comes, we will all see whose movement was correct and whose was not.

I think trying to "unite" only delutes a movement. If further bloodshed is needed post-revolution, then so be it.

Fight for what you believe in at all cost.

[Ol' Dirty]

Libertarian and Authoritarian leftists will forever be in conflict until one prevails.

To be more specific, leftist liberals should stick together, not just leftists; authoritarians can just fuck off. Thank you for pointing that out.


The statists had their chance, and history has shown their ideology to be incorrect. The only way to unite the left is to unite the libertarians (the anarchists, the left-communists, the councilists, the libertarian socialists, etc.), realize that there is no difference between anarchism and authentic Marxism in today's mode of production, oppose authoritarianism whether it's under the guise of fascism or "communism", lead through example and collective organization, and prepare ourselves for when the material conditions are ripe.

Agreeble, but what about the left?

Body Count Posted on Feb 27 2006, 06:31 PM


When and If the time ever comes, we will all see whose movement was correct and whose was not.

What? Are you talking about violent oppostion amoung the leftist groups? Rule of the strongest? If we do that, we'll destroy societal thought! Might never makes right (a rather true cliche).


I think trying to "unite" only delutes a movement. If further bloodshed is needed post-revolution, then so be it.

United mass seldom "dilutes" anything.

[red team]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 27 2006, 08:17 AM

Economics limits your policy options no matter who's in charge proletariat or no proletariat. Of course depending on who's in charge some policy options will be favored over other policy options, but as stated before your options are limited by your economics.
Can you please explain what you mean by that?
Contrary to what people may think about various communist parties and programs, what happen historically and what will happen if an alternative government takes power is that they are constrained in their options for what they can implement due to economic conditions which in turn are due to the material conditions of a particular society. Communism as it was defined as: "each according to his ability, each according to his need" was impossible to implement as productive forces (science and technology) existed in 1917, 1949 and 1959. This limited what you could implement as an alternative economic system. What you have to remember is that ever since human society develop the means to produce an agricultural surplus, a division of labour was made possible so different types of jobs became available for people to perform besides agricultural production. As these jobs became more complex and demanding a dedicated layer of people are needed to devote most of their time in becoming competent in doing these jobs, otherwise things like factories, computers, software, universities and hospitals either would not exist or would not be able to function effectively.

These are indeed very good things to have as they increase your: material production, access to information and health, but they come with a drawback of needing to support a full-time dedicated class of professionals. Because of this fact you'll need to implement a rationing system to support this division of labour so that you could increase your productive forces not in just a crude way of building more factories although factories are important, but by acquiring new technologies to improve production techniques so you can reduce the need for labour intensive factories in the first place. Looking at factories and computers you can plainly see the evidence of this happening at least in the west. Computer use to be large machines that took up entire rooms and required lots of power to operate. Factories use to employ hundreds of thousands of people with jobs like screw turners and spot welders. Today computers that fit in the corner of your desk is hundreds of times faster than the ones that need to fill a whole room. Factories now use pre-programmed robotic arms to do most repetitive tasks.

Because of this necessary division of labour the proposal of some Communists in time-sharing jobs is as harmful as it is unrealistic. As every job other than unskilled labour requires specialized training you can't effectively time-share different skilled jobs as one worker wouldn't know how to do another worker's job without resource and time consuming training. For example, swapping a doctor's job with an auto-mechanic's job cannot be realistically done unless they're both are competent doctors and mechanics, but what's the likelihood of that? I don't even need to go into the ridiculousness of swapping an unskilled position with a skilled one. So back to what I was stating before in which your economic/material conditions limits your policy decisions. Under the present technological conditions that governments find their societies in, they realistically only have two choices of economic systems for rationing resources and labour. One system would to let market supply and demand ration your resources which we term Capitalism and the other would be to have a centrally managed system in which rationing would be done by government decrees which we term Socialism. Neither of these systems are ideal and both of them can fairly quickly be corrupted by hoarding of critical resources to gain positions of power.

Corruption in turn is understandable by the fact that some jobs that present society requires and in which some people are rationed into are unfulfilling, debilitating and/or dangerous so in the cost-benefit analysis of those in these positions they may undertake a risky "criminal" action so as to escape their situation. This social fact makes necessary a police force which exists in both Capitalist and Socialist societies to reduce corruption which again drains away resources which could be used for more productive purposes. The only way that I could think of in which this dilemma could be resolved is by improving technology to the point in which rationing is no longer needed since most menial, demanding and dangerous jobs are automated which also reduces corruption to a minimum since people would no longer find it necessary nor be tempted because of their desperate situation to engage in criminal actions. Ultimately, this means that a labour-intensive Socialism is neither desirable nor stable and only a high-tech Communist society can be both liberating and stable. This society closely resemble the Technocratic society as proposed by Technocracy. What is in debate is whether or not Capitalism can advance technology to the point where a high-tech Communism is possible or whether scientific progress will eventually stall under the present system.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:48 PM
What? Are you talking about violent oppostion amoung the leftist groups? Rule of the strongest? If we do that, we'll destroy societal thought! Might never makes right (a rather true cliche).

Nobody seems to have a problem fighting Leninist (Or, "authoritarians").


United mass seldom "dilutes" anything.
True, but why not try to be as "pure" as possible?

[NovelGentry]

realize that there is no difference between anarchism and authentic Marxism in today's mode of production

As a self-proclaimed and labeled Orthadox Marxist, I think you'll have a very difficult time convincing the Marxists of this.


Nobody seems to have a problem fighting Leninist

It's a rather pointless endeavor if you ask me. Nor am I going to fight Leninists on the idea alone that they are Leninists.

[Abood]

realize that there is no difference between anarchism and authentic Marxism in today's mode of production
As a self-proclaimed and labeled Orthadox Marxist, I think you'll have a very difficult time convincing the Marxists of this.
I'm a marxist, and I would say there is a huge and fundamental difference between the two.

[wet blanket]

A combination of individual self-realization and revolutionary consciousness is what must hold the masses together.

[barista.marxista]

The distinction between anarchists and communists today is very different than it was in Marx's time. Capitalism in the late 1800s was not nearly as developed as it is today. Marx's usage of the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" was to describe the stage after the revolution when the proletarian advances the means of production as rapidly as possible, as to soon provide what everyone needs. Marx believed this was necessary, as proletarian revolution was imminent, because he thought capitalism couldn't possibly sustain itself. History has shown this prediction wrong. Anarchists widely believed this "state" would be repressive, and ultimately would lead to yet another hierarchial stage of history that becomes reactionary. Leninists took Marx's definition of the DoP to a new level, building an ideology around the vanguard party that would advance the means of production, while keeping communist control. History has, IMO, shown otherwise, and discredited Lenin's attempt to move to socialism from the neocolonial world.

Today, however, the means of production exist already to immediately fulfill our maxim of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." No authoritarian state is needed to oversee industrialization while maintaining control -- the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is almost useless. Instead, what is needed is a structure that can guarantee worker control and self-management while human nature redefines itself (see: species-being) in classless, egalitarian terms. The ideal way of doing this is the system of federations of workers councils. This is an idea that overlaps both anarchism and Marxism. While it is true that many anarchists are idealistic, and many Marxists are deterministic, the rational and authentic adherents to both show literally no distinction. Autonomist Marxists, anarcho-communists, council communists, and the like share the same materialist conception of society, and practically the same view of what to do.

[encephalon]

A continuous drive towards an end to exploitation.

[Iepilei]

The general leftists populations are broken over miniature details. Who will run the revolution, what will be accomplished, etc. The problem itself is the same problem we're trying to break free from: DOGMA.

All too often, the left community is blinded by dogma. Anyone who lists anything contrary to what they (or Marx) state is said to be a 'reactionary' and is instantly discredited.

[dusk]

That's individuality.
We all have the same goal.
but we want to realize it each on a other way.

It's a good thing that people don't have the same opinions.
Because that's a freedom.

But sometimes you gotta sacrifice something from yourself.
To get something done for the bigger picture.

[NovelGentry]

Today, however, the means of production exist already to immediately fulfill our maxim of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

While you are certainly right about the reason Marx saw the DoP as necessary, I disagree with this line. It is, of course, a difficult case to prove either way. But I would wager Marxists are far more critical of whether or not it's true, and with good reason... if it's not true and we don't account for it, it means something far worse than if it is true and we happen to be wrong.

I don't think it will be possible for workers at any stage in capitalism to completely gauge this. Not until we oversee the productive forces will such be possible. I would be quite happy to see the necessary DoP to last 3 months merely to determine such is the case.

I've examined intellectual property as the new property relations of post-industrial capitalist economies, and while I think it is indicative that certain things are easily determined socially distributable, I don't think everything is. If such was the case, I think we'd see Intellectual Property playing and even bigger role than it does.

There was a discussion on this board about a 3D printer that was possibly going to be available to most consumers at some point... the technology is there, but not advanced enough. The discussion focused on the changing property relations. For example, if it was possible for every consumer to print an iPod by say, downloading a CAD representation and printing it on one of these printers, you would see things such as iPods, smaller embedded computers, etc, become nothing more than intellectual property.

This is easily examined in such devices and particularly in such luxury items. We have yet to progress other raw necessities to that level, however. There was talk not so long ago on a development that allowed houses to be fabricated on the spot in a mtter of days using some sort of cement and fiber particles to form the entire structure... these would be the types of things I think you would have to see before we start talking about the possibility of that Mantra.

In short, if the principle of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" were capable of being true, it would be true. In the end, revolutions circle around property relations which are changed by developments in the productive forces. Early looms and spinners did this for textiles which gave way to the first industrialized productive forces... we haven't escaped industrial productive forces completely. Although our economies are highly post-industrial, there are still key things which rely on industrial technology and even some which rely on nearly feudal technology. Agriculture for example didn't become nearly as industrialized as other necessary productions until the 1950s.

We're in a sharp transition now, but what we can be certain of is that transition cannot be completed until revolution, the same way industrialization couldn't be completed under fedual property relations, post-industrialization won't be able to be completed until after bourgeois property relations.

[barista.marxista]

I'm not referring to the capability to make iPods for everyone, or 3D printers. These are luxuries, not necessities. We do have the means, in both productive capabilities and surplus-value accumulation, to provide food, shelter, healthcare, etc. to all the working people of the world. To assume that when we can produce for everyone, it automatically will be, takes a deterministic standpoint, and ignores the ability of capitalism to resolve its some of its internal contradictions itself (while, obviously, not resolving the inevitability of crisis). The fact that we spend so many resources on developing a new kind of iPod each six months, or several dozen different types of SUV, or other meaningless consumer trash, is exactly the way in which our ability to produce for everyone is masked. It's absorption and creation of surplus-value that is only for further consumer shit. When we run the factories, and subsequently society, as the working-class, we can transform that wasted excess to provide what the people really need, universally. We do have that capability today.

[Much Commie Love]

I read'ris shit sum page's back there, unh, I'll quote it here and that's 'cuz I thought it needed some schoolin' to do :o


Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:45 PM
What makes you think that the Left will ever stick together? Anarchists and Marxists have fundamentally different ideas on the direction of society post revolution. Further bloodshed is quite possible.

What makes you think that? Maybe we're bickering, but....
We're not really that violent. Perhaps 'the struggle' will be, but..
We've never really 'used' to have a 'culture' of slaughtering each-other, so...
Unless that "incident" with Trotsky and Stalin, well, we usually just yell at each-other
than shooting each-other.

However: Anarchists and "Marxists" (Which is what I assume you mean) have more in common than you so seemingly pessimistically think.

The actual marxists are merely theoreticans supplying the backbone of the Communist movement, and have absolutely no quarrel with the Anarchists..even if they try to appear opposed to Marxists. The real enemies of the Anarchists are obviously the sub-groups such as Leninists and Maoists: They prefer to exchange "proletars" which "peasants", and the old rulers with...well, themselves. An and enemy of the state, as which both Anarchists and Marxists in nature are, would most definately oppose that, in joint effort?

That would most likely be, "the glue" ;)

[NovelGentry]

I'm not referring to the capability to make iPods for everyone, or 3D printers. These are luxuries, not necessities. We do have the means, in both productive capabilities and surplus-value accumulation, to provide food, shelter, healthcare, etc.

Maybe you need to read what I said again. iPods are actually a far more advanced example than what we do for food, shelter, and healthcare. Relative to the production of embedded computers, the productive forces for our necessities are pretty much moot.

My point was of course, even the most technologically advanced things are just barely under the type of production to warrant changing property relations. The thought that we will be even close to that with everything else is laughable at best.


To assume that when we can produce for everyone, it automatically will be, takes a deterministic standpoint, and ignores the ability of capitalism to resolve its some of its internal contradictions itself (while, obviously, not resolving the inevitability of crisis).

Well read what you said again.

Now again.

Now tell me the flaw in that. Still don't know?

If indeed you believe capitalism has an inevitability of crisis, you believe there is something to which capitalism will not be able to resolve. Well if we've advanced to where the productive forces are capable of doing everything you seem to think they are, please explain what else there is to resolve.

What you are doing is concluding that class struggle will be a purely ideological struggle in the struggle for communism, where as historically class struggle has always hinged on the back of economic change.

Economically and materially... we apparently are already there according to you. So all we're waiting for is our minds to catch up, right? Oh, if we'd all just forget about iPods and put those resources towards growing corn, isn't that so, Mr. Theory? Can I call you Mr. Theory?

While indeed I may ignore the ability of capitalism to resolve some of its internal contradictions... certainly acheiving the necessary productive forces for "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" would require the resolution of a lot more than some.

But there's something missing from your equation. In all your challenges where someone proclaims, "SHOW ME WHERE WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THIS!" You scream, "Look, there! We grow more food than we consume and so much is wasted". So you merrily chant and think you have shown that the necessary amounts of such goods are produced, all the while ignoring how they are produced! All the while ignoring the division of labor required to make our current productive forces have the capacity you speak of.

The concept of Marxian "ability" hinges on the very concept that man is capable of persuing and discovering his true abilities. A completed emancipation of man, socially and economically. NO SUCH EMANCIPATION EXISTS UNDER CURRENT PRODUCTIVE FORCES.

If you are right, then you would have us believe that we do not lack this emancipation as a product of our technological capacity/progression, but merely because the ruling class would not allow it. You have undermined our entire material basis for class existence. Classes are no longer a product of the necessary division of labor in your mind, but rather the division of labor is a product of classes.

What you are doing is looking at modern day capacity for production and saying, "well if we can do it now, we can do it 20 years from now... or 40... or whenever revolution is." You have altogether ignored looking at how high the division of labor is, even in those areas where such a capacity may seem to exist.

It's always good to look at need alone and say "can we fill that need"... yes? maybe? And your answer may be quite optimistic... the question then becomes, can we fulfill that need as we see fit, without classes, without the division of labor?

As much as you claim that modern day productive forces mean there is relatively no difference between Marxists and Anarchists, you do so only on the grounds that you completely ignore Marxist theory. We do not call into the existence of classes on mere whim, nor do we destroy them on mere whim. If you intend to destroy classes you intend to destroy the division of labor, and if you intend to do that, you certainly cannot expect that modern productive forces will be capable of what is needed. There in lies the fundamental difference between us Marxists and all those with Anarchist idealism. For us, the destruction of the division of labor is not the product of our whim, we do not destroy it and build the productive forces to compensate, but the building of such productive forces, in compensating for it, is what actually destroys it.


It is arguable (not that I'm going to attempt to do it here), that at all times, all societies have had the capacity to fulfill the needs of that society. It would seem then that the true pendulum of revolution is a variable ratio between the amount of production compensated for by Division of Labor, and the amount compensated for by technology. When technology swings into the lead... revolutions occur, then as it settles, the division of labor takes hold to meet the increasing rise in population.

So yes, be certain modern technology is enough, and I will be certain that it is only enough with respect to the modern division of labor and thus... modern classes. What then can one conclude... modern technology is not enough for a classless society.

Indeed, technology must advance so much as to not only meet need, but to do so in accordance with that pesky first clause... "from each according to his ability." Shame we couldn't have just left that part out... it'd certainly make the anarchists sound a lot saner.

[barista.marxista]

Obviously you misunderstand what kind of contradictions drive capitalism into crisis. I'll explain this without being as degrading as you were.


f indeed you believe capitalism has an inevitability of crisis, you believe there is something to which capitalism will not be able to resolve. Well if we've advanced to where the productive forces are capable of doing everything you seem to think they are, please explain what else there is to resolve.

Capitalism's crisis that it attempts to resolve isn't its ability to produce for everyone. It's how to disperse its overaccumulation of surplus value in a way that allows for it to again make production profitable, and thus regenerate its productive cycle. This is inevitable in capitalism, because its drive to utilize fixed capital in order to bleed variable capital more always creates the devaluation of labour and commodities. So obviously it has the ability to produce more than it does, but it cannot do it profitably.


What you are doing is concluding that class struggle will be a purely ideological struggle in the struggle for communism, where as historically class struggle has always hinged on the back of economic change.

You're trying awful hard to make me into an idealist here. It does hinge on the back of economic change. Class struggle is never purely ideological, since consciousness it formed through material conditions which show we the workers that crisis can never be averted, and its tendency isn't some fetishized anomaly that is outside our control, but rather the reality that without surplus-value to be invested in further production, capitalism doesn't work. Class struggle is not ideological, it's very concrete.


Economically and materially... we apparently are already there according to you. So all we're waiting for is our minds to catch up, right?

No, we're not there, because capitalism is still resolving itself to absorb its overaccumulation in a way that is covert to the masses. Again, you seem to think when the productive ability exists to provide for everyone, this will cause crisis and create revolution. Have you ignored every crisis and depression in history?


All the while ignoring the division of labor required to make our current productive forces have the capacity you speak of.

What do you mean, ignoring the division of labour? How have I in any way ignored the labour required to produce commodities? Not only do we have the material means to produce what we need, but we have a significant industrial reserve army.


If you are right, then you would have us believe that we do not lack this emancipation as a product of our technological capacity/progression, but merely because the ruling class would not allow it. You have undermined our entire material basis for class existence. Classes are no longer a product of the necessary division of labor in your mind, but rather the division of labor is a product of classes.

You're fetishizing the means of production, and not acknowledging that production does depend on the ruling class who control it. The structure of capitalism right now is quite ingenious in not only its masking of its destructive tendencies, but how it promotes individualism and capitalism's ability to accommodate for this. Its flexibility in production is exactly what keeps it afloat, both in productive capability and the social regeneration. This certainly isn't the result of any excursion of proletarian control, and unless you're going to be functionalist, it must be because of the organization of the ruling class. You're being completely deterministic, fetishizing what Marx explicitly said is a product of human relations as being a conscious factor in society.


It is arguable (not that I'm going to attempt to do it here), that at all times, all societies have had the capacity to fulfill the needs of that society.

If you say it's arguable that every society has had the production capability to fulfill the needs of the society, then you have no understanding of the materialist conception of history. You are at the same time fetishizing the means of production, and ignoring how they actually work under capitalist reproduction. You're not understanding how classes and production dialectically interact, but are instead prescribing a functionalist role to what, again, is merely an organization of human relations. You fundamentally misunderstand both how capitalism reproduces itself, and how it is a device of the bourgeoisie.

[bunk]

What could unite us. We'll always have different views but we do need to come forward.

A start would be a set of points that the vast majority of revolutionary leftists agree on.

Then we just need a realisation to get rid of capitalism ASAP.

Or unity may not be needed if one leftist philosophy is large while all of the others are sidelined by most people.

[NovelGentry]

Capitalism's crisis that it attempts to resolve isn't its ability to produce for everyone. It's how to disperse its overaccumulation of surplus value in a way that allows for it to again make production profitable, and thus regenerate its productive cycle. This is inevitable in capitalism, because its drive to utilize fixed capital in order to bleed variable capital more always creates the devaluation of labour and commodities. So obviously it has the ability to produce more than it does, but it cannot do it profitably.

But that is on the grounds surplus-value exists, which is of course on the grounds that classes exist... and in turn, on the grounds that the division of labor exists. You've separated this part of my statement from the other one.

The recognition that capitalism cannot resolve this is based on the recognition of the division of labor, which you have wholey ignored.


You're trying awful hard to make me into an idealist here. It does hinge on the back of economic change. Class struggle is never purely ideological, since consciousness it formed through material conditions which show we the workers that crisis can never be averted, and its tendency isn't some fetishized anomaly that is outside our control, but rather the reality that without surplus-value to be invested in further production, capitalism doesn't work. Class struggle is not ideological, it's very concrete.

I agree, class struggle is very concrete. But you have turned it into something purely ideological by ignoring a very real aspect of the material conditions.

We agree technology (in an oversimplified way) is our primary focus for material conditions, what you have left out is that technology is only as good as the division of labor implemented alongside that technology.

Say for example you have a number of industrialized machines that make a quilt. It is not so simple to say it merely makes the quilt, nor is it so simple to say the laborer's make the quilt. No single laborer makes the quilt, and the advancement of the productive forces determines that. There are thread makers, thread dyers, thread weavers, and hundreds more I cannot even mention, as I am not familiarized enough with the process of quilt production.

It is, however, that division of labor which gives rise to classes, which relegates a single person to a "thread maker" -- not a quit maker... and even as a thread maker, they do not completely make the thread, there are still those who gather the materials, separate the materials, treat the materials, etc.

The current productive forces are in sync with that division of labor.


Again, you seem to think when the productive ability exists to provide for everyone, this will cause crisis and create revolution. Have you ignored every crisis and depression in history?

That is not what I think it all... and certainly not what you think. As I said, it could be argued, that revolution is a ratio between the compensation of production by the division of labor vs. that compensation by technology. Only together are the two every capable of producing whatever amount is producable. I said it seems revolution has occured when technology has overcome the division of labor as the primary compensation.

I also said that it would appear every society in the history of man has had enough to produce for that society... certainly there are minor variances, but if such a thing were not consistently true, population growth would never occur.

So if you are right in saying "I think when the productive ability exists to provide for all, this will cause crisis and create revolution," then I must think we are constantly in crisis and constantly having revolution.

Whether we produce necessary amounts or not, at some point we also produce a specific amount. Let's imagine for a minute that such a thing is X. And we will call the necessary amount to provide for everyone @. What I said is not at all that when X = @ we see crisis and revolution, what I said was that always X = T/D, production = technological capacity/division of labor. When T overcomes D in that ratio, then I think we see crisis and revolution. Why? Because technology now demands the division of labor only play a minor role in our overall production. Classes, as a product of the division of labor, are thus affected by such a thing.


What do you mean, ignoring the division of labour? How have I in any way ignored the labour required to produce commodities?

When making this type of argument... one that is supposed to be a rhetorical question of sorts... one must always remember to substitute X for X. What do you mean, ignoring the division of labor? ... the proper question is then "How have I in any way ignored the division of labor required to produce commodities?" not "How have I in any way ignored the labor..." They are two very different things.


Not only do we have the material means to produce what we need, but we have a significant industrial reserve army.

Which has no significant effect on the division of labor.


You're being completely deterministic, fetishizing what Marx explicitly said is a product of human relations as being a conscious factor in society.

Well, note the entire paragraph was based on what it seems you would have us believe. As far as what I believe, yes, it is a product of human relations, but human relations are not simply chosen by humans... they are actual relations built on our relation to things we may not even think about.


If you say it's arguable that every society has had the production capability to fulfill the needs of the society, then you have no understanding of the materialist conception of history.

I don't think the materialist conception of history has ever been so based on incapacity to sustain our own existence, but more the nature in which we do so. When Marx talked about man and man making history, but first needing to fulfill his needs in order that he may make history, it is implied that man does so. If he does/did not, we would not be here today. Why do you presume it is any different if there is 1 man or 500 men?

The materialist conception of history pays relatively little attention to whether or not these things can be fulfilled, and a lot more to how they are fulfilled. Does man create tools to aid his production? Does man divide labor amongst themselves to have more efficient production with the current means? The most fundamental antagonism that any historical materialist must look at is not whether man can fulfill his need, but that he does... and one must determine how.

If the antagonist to man's existence is fulfilling these necessities, we can, at all points in history, determine he has done so, or else man would not exist.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:48 PM
What? Are you talking about violent oppostion amoung the leftist groups? Rule of the strongest? If we do that, we'll destroy societal thought! Might never makes right (a rather true cliche).


Nobody seems to have a problem fighting Leninist (Or, "authoritarians").

But shouldn't we win over authoritarianism by use of o ur minds, not brute strength?




United mass seldom "dilutes" anything.


True, but why not try to be as "pure" as possible?

Fuck purity, man. People are obliged to have individual needs and thoughts; I just think we should stop bickering, revolt, remake society, and make decisions democratically.

[Axel1917]

Struggle between groups in unavoidable. The sectarians will get nowhere, and there will be one party that emerges victorious, of which will attract the masses. Some sectarian remnants and such may end up flocking to it, seeing their past errors, but struggle will probably remain a part of leftism. A party with an iron Bolshevik discipline and correct methods will be the one that leads the revolution to victory.

[red team]

You're not going to have that many people agree to live in a society in which only the basic necessities like food, shelter and healthcare are met. True, these things are important in which they keep you alive, but pets are kept alive too. People demand more than simple necessities from an economic system, otherwise they would lose enthusiasm for work pretty quickly.

The problem is people want a diverse range of luxury items which is understandable given that there is also a diverse range of people with many different tastes and interests. A commandist centralized economy can solve the distribution problem of basic necessities easily since there's only a few resources to take into account, but how can you determine the vast range of goods and services that people will demand after basic necessities are met? If you have a centralized economy you're going to end up dedicating a certain number of people in working out the logistics of distribution, the allocation of resources and the actual demand for products. That is you'll end up with a full-time bureacracy whether or not it's democratically elected or government appointed is irrelevant.

Furthermore, given that a large layer of people are strategically placed in controlling the distribution channel, it gives them enormous power that could be potentially abused for their own ends. The potential for a centralized system of commodity distribution to be corrupted isn't any less than for a decentralized system as we have now. Comissars could be just as corrupt and overpaid as CEOs.

[Ol' Dirty]

Struggle between groups in unavoidable.

Nothing's unavoidable.


The sectarians will get nowhere, and there will be one party that emerges victorious, of which will attract the masses.

Are you proposing a one-party-state situation? Oh, yay! Let's make things worse than they were before! A dictatorship! Yipee! God save the Dictator! :huh:


A party with an iron Bolshevik discipline and correct methods will be the one that leads the revolution to victory.

There is no "correct way".

[xprol]

1) "What do you think could pull all leftist groups together? We all share a common goal (the defeat of capitalism; the creation of a classless society), yet we all have different views on how to achieve this state.

2) "The reason the right is so dominant is mainly because they are so centralized; they have excellent orginization. Now, how could we unite the left in the same fassion? "

Can I ask you, what do you think is the most important aspect of the the fight against capitalism. Whatever it is, study it and explain it.

If you think it is a matter of left organization as compared with right organization, Study it and explain it.


However, you might want to consider the fact that it is imperialist capitalism that is the driving force behind all social and political developments, including the revolutionary response or otherwise (mostly otherwise) of the 'left'. By studying it and explaining it you would be developing yourself and the whole revolutionary process, the best thing you could do!

[rouchambeau]

The general leftists populations are broken over miniature details. Who will run the revolution, what will be accomplished, etc. The problem itself is the same problem we're trying to break free from: DOGMA.


EXACTLY!!!

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:39 AM

The general leftists populations are broken over miniature details. Who will run the revolution, what will be accomplished, etc. The problem itself is the same problem we're trying to break free from: DOGMA.


EXACTLY!!!
I agree.

[Davey]

I guess libertarian marxists are critical of the role of Lenin and Trotsky in the Russian revolution[as I am]. Lenin was critical of 'left communists', they were critical of many of the things he did as head of the Party. I'm joining the Socialist Alliance, which has relaunched itself in England' I think its a goog way of bringing the left together. Any thoughts?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:49 PM
probably love will bring us together
Agreed.

Another point, though... the fact that everybody here questions each other, and still wish for equality amongst themselves shows that we are the revolution - who here would not take up arms against capitalism, even if it were with a Stalinist organization's efforts?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:49 PM
probably love will bring us together
Agreed.


Another point, though... the fact that everybody here questions each other, and still wish for equality amongst themselves shows that we are the revolution - who here would not take up arms against capitalism, even if it were with a Stalinist organization's efforts?

I hate authoritarian Communism; it makes all of us look bad.


Why are you restricted?

[flyby]

i think people need different levels of unity -- different levels of being "pulled together."

There are important forms of unity needed in the current struggle -- along fighting lines that really take on what is happening in this society.

I thought the recent "open letter" by the World Can' Wait people got to the heart of much of this:

http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=...=1223&Itemid=61 (http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1223&Itemid=61)

On another level, we need unity among revolutionaries around a programme that can lead to theoverthrow of this system, and an ongoing dynamic transition to a global classless communist society.

I think if you read the opening of the RCP's draft programme you can get a sharp sense of how that is possible:

http://rwor.org/margorp/progpart1-e.htm