Little question to Redstar2000

[Zeruzo]

Maybe this is already asked before, but i'm interested in the answer.
You say that there is no need for a socialist fase in between capitalism and communism. But how can a classles society promote class-struggle? (which you clearly do)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:28 AM
Maybe this is already asked before, but I'm interested in the answer.

You say that there is no need for a socialist phase in between capitalism and communism. But how can a classles society promote class-struggle? (which you clearly do)
Class struggle is not something that needs to be "promoted"...like a government campaign to get people to wear their seat-belts when they drive.

The process of smashing the old state apparatus, dispersing its personnel, and setting up a functioning communist society will be one of intense class struggle.

Those who want to defend this or that aspect of "the old ways" will have to be fought and defeated; both with words and, at least on a few occasions, with guns.

But a new state apparatus is not required to do that...provided that the revolutionary proletariat is really revolutionary!

You see, that's one of the real differences between Marxism and Leninism. Leninism proceeds on the assumption that even immediately after a proletarian insurrection, the workers "aren't really revolutionary enough" and have to be "led" to "do the revolutionary thing". If there's no new state apparatus to make them "be revolutionary", then they "won't do it".

In my view, the Marxist assumption is the exact opposite: the working class will revolutionize everything unless some new state apparatus holds them back.

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

[sanpal]

I doubt that Marx was so naive

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by sanpal+Apr 22 2006, 08:00 AM--> (sanpal @ Apr 22 2006, 08:00 AM) I doubt that Marx was so naive as RS :) [/b]

redstar2000
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.

:lol:

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

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by RS2K
Class struggle is not something that needs to be "promoted"...like a government campaign to get people to wear their seat-belts when they drive.

Isn't the dictatorship of the prolatariat supposed to promote class struggle?

The workers need to organize themselves in order to prevent the Bourgeosie from making a come-back in a classless society...At least for a while.

[anomaly]

Why does that demand a state, though?

Constructing a new state apparatus simply deters us from communism.

[RedStarOverChina]

The dictatorship of proletariat is not exactly a state...

The dictatorship of proletariat does not have a ruling class or a standing army. No boundaries either, methinks.

[anomaly]

The dictatorship of proletariat is not exactly a state...
Unfortunately, most people who support DoP think differently.


The dictatorship of proletariat does not have a ruling class or a standing army. No boundaries either, methinks.
Almost all DoP supporters say that the proletariat will be the ruling class (thus, there will be a ruled class) and that it will be a state.

I have long argued that, on the contrary, any post-revolutionary society will be functionally classless. That means all rigid class divisions we see today will disappear because private property itself will disappear.

Of course, in response to this claim, I've never heard the end of it from Leninists and their supporters. :lol:

[RedStarOverChina]

Almost all DoP supporters say that the proletariat will be the ruling class (thus, there will be a ruled class) and that it will be a state.
Marx and Engels were DoP supports too, you know. ;)

And they believed otherwise.

[LoneRed]

the RDOP will be used merely to suppress the capitalist from achieving and using the weapons of the state against them. when that is taken care of who is there to be ruled over? as the whole working class is the state.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 22 2006, 10:53 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 22 2006, 10:53 AM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 05:28 AM
Maybe this is already asked before, but I'm interested in the answer.

You say that there is no need for a socialist phase in between capitalism and communism. But how can a classles society promote class-struggle? (which you clearly do)
Class struggle is not something that needs to be "promoted"...like a government campaign to get people to wear their seat-belts when they drive. [/b]
But you do believe in class strugle?
Making your 'century of fighting the bourgeouisie' a dictatorship of the proletariat, right? (which is the thing i was interested in)

[redstar2000]

Class struggle, especially in revolutionary periods, is not a matter of "belief"...it's as plain and undeniable as an active volcano.

Sure, you can call the post-revolutionary period a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...provided that you don't let that phrase lead you to the conclusion that a Leninist Vanguard Party despotism is "required" or that a centralized hyper-state is "a historical necessity".

The idea is not to "restore order" (make things like what they are now but more "pro-working class")...but to change the "order of things" altogether!

To a Leninist, this is "ultra-leftist" and "utopian".

It's called communism...and I'm for it.

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

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:58 PM
To a Leninist, this is "ultra-leftist" and "utopian".

You guessed my thoughts :).
But my question is answered, thank you.

[Nachie]

Defining a Dialogue of Revolution: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html) ;)

[Zeruzo]

Wait, i was just scrolling the Redstar2000 papers and came to the conclusion that allthough you are opposed to dialectical materialism you are not opposed to historical materialism. Which is in fact dialectical materialism applied to society. Thus my question is: why do you oppose dialectical materialism but not historical materialism?

Edit:

I did read '(7) Finally, and most importantly: I must emphasise that nothing written here is intended to undermine HM, a scientific theory I fully accept (once the baleful influence of Hegel has been excised, that is). HM will therefore be taken as read.' but couldn't find why on the site :). (the @nti-dialectics one)

edit2:

found it :).