Will Anarchists wait 1000 years for Revolution?

[philosopher]

According to “dialectal materialism” and its application to social events “historical materialism”; Marx and Engels described the process of revolution as a leap from one state to another where the physical properties are transformed into something completely different i.e. when a solid item melts and turns into liquid a revolutionary transformation has taken place.

Applying this to social development a parallel can be seen where the feudal system based on “solid matter” land ceased to be the same when it turned into liquid capital and a revolutionary dialectical leap occurred, a transformation which enabled wealth to be passed easily in its liquid capital form between members of the bourgeoisie

Liquid although free flowing has constant volume and when heated further turns into vapour where another dialectical leap has occurred. Vapour not only flows readily but will always spread itself to fill the space available. Similarly liquid capital does not readily expand itself to encompass the entire population as it is owned by a minority of specific individuals who would need to have it wrenched from them (i.e. have its structure broken down) in order to include the have-nots.

Socialism is the next form where wealth (I e. the means of production) is not controlled by a separate class but held in trust by the state thus enabling it be expanded and spread to include the total population. Here to a revolutionary leap can be seen as clearly as in the case of water to vapour.

The development of nano machines with the capability to transform matter into different forms of matter at an atomic level and having the ability to produce any quantity of commodities free of cost or labour time will occur in the distant future (possibly 1000 years away). This represents the final revolutionary leap into communism where mankind finally defeats the problems of shortages and other constraints presented by the physical world.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by philosopher
l Anarchists wait 1000 years for Revolution?, Historical materialism

I don't really think it's a choice is it?

I don't believe that waiting a thousand years is necessary. I don't think capitalism can last that long.

Anarchists will continue to organise, confront and propagandise the idea of anarchism and when the point in which revolution occurs, hopefully we will have an organised mass movement.

[Black Dagger]

I don't understand the point of this thread, what do you want people to respond to? Your post poses no question. The title of the thread asks 'will anarchists wait 1000 years for revolution?'- yet your post is a waffle about dialectics and historical materialism, with no mention of anarchism or anarchists. Please explain yourself more clearly/concisely. Is this meant to be a, 'i have historical materialism, what do you anarchists have to explain the future development of society' type thing?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 3 2006, 04:24 PM
I don't understand the point of this thread, what do you want people to respond to? Your post poses no question. The title of the thread asks 'will anarchists wait 1000 years for revolution?'- yet your post is a waffle about dialectics and historical materialism, with no mention of anarchism or anarchists. Please explain yourself more clearly/concisely. Is this meant to be a, 'i have historical materialism, what do you anarchists have to explain the future development of society' type thing?
I suppose the question is whether anarchists accept dialectical materialism?

[philosopher]

Most anarchists reject a socialist transition believing a move straight to communism is possible.

Communism is a moneyless society which will require unlimited supply of commodities. As money represents a form of rationing and will remain with us until the technology to produce unlimited goods is achieved capitalism would remain with us until then.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:47 PM
Most anarchists reject a socialist transition believing a move straight to communism is possible.
No they don't.

[LoneRed]

what type of anarchist are you? thats what the big debates are between the communists and the anarchists.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by philosopher
The development of nano machines with the capability to transform matter into different forms of matter at an atomic level and having the ability to produce any quantity of commodities free of cost or labour time will occur in the distant future (possibly 1000 years away).

Unduly pessimistic, I think.

100 years seems like a more reasonable estimate...and maybe less than that.

It will indeed mean a significant change in the means of production...and yet another significant strain on the relations of production.

The "final step" that makes communism practical?

Quite possibly.

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

[Cult of Reason]

Communism is a moneyless society which will require unlimited supply of commodities. As money represents a form of rationing and will remain with us until the technology to produce unlimited goods is achieved capitalism would remain with us until then.

That is stupid. Unlimited supply is an impossibility, there is only so much stuff on Earth, only so much stuff in the universe.

What is needed for a moneyless society is merely the capability to produce an abundance of goods and services, where in this case "abundance" means "more than enough". The capability to produce an abundance of any particular product exists the moment there is the capability to supply more than the demand. A general abundance is the situation where all essential and all commonly used goods and services can be produces in numbers larger than the demand.

Does there exist the capability to produce an abundance of goods and services for the whole world? No, unfortunately, not yet. Many places in the world are nowhere near sufficiently developed, and are hampered by not being so fortunate as the First World with their natural resources (sure, the Arabians have oil, but what else do they have?).

However, in the same way as a smaller army can gain local superiority over a larger one, there are areas of the world that do have sufficient natural resources, technology and people trained to use that technology to produce an abundance of goods and services. These include North America (since 1910, as calculated by the Technical Alliance, a research group in the 1920s) and probably Europe too (I am a (not very active) member of a group which wants to do similar calculations for Europe as the Technical Alliance did for North America. We all think that Europe has been able to produce an abundance for several decades, but we want to be absolutely sure), and, more speculatively, possibly Australia (unfortunately there are no groups there, as far as I know, that are trying to determine that). There is no reason that prevents those places from having a Communist society/Anarchy and even a technate.

Communism is already a possibility in the First World! Consumerism, atrocious waste, grain mountains, disposable razor blades ( ;) ), underproduction, milk lakes and low load factors are all testament to that.

[philosopher]

If all things were free now who would bother working to produce anything. Only complete automation requiring no labour time will achieve this. Still many years away

[MrDoom]

If all things were free now who would bother working to produce anything. Only complete automation requiring no labour time will achieve this. Still many years away

People will have to work less when it can be calculated just how much labor is needed to fulfill society's needs, and technology is used for peoples' benefit and to make work easier, rather than making a profit. Rather than working in excess for a stranger, people would be making at least what they needed to continue life.

Besides, if noone farms then we all starve. People already know that much. Other people would be drawn to jobs they are interested in.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:14 PM
If all things were free now who would bother working to produce anything. Only complete automation requiring no labour time will achieve this. Still many years away
Did I say things were free? Did I say we actually had an abundace? No. I said there is the capability to produce an abundance of goods and services with already installed technology (I do not think outsourcing is yet extensive enough to have affected that enough, and even if it was, factories can be rebuilt). Of course, the Capitalists deliberately prevent an abundance from occuring:


Communism is already a possibility in the First World! Consumerism, atrocious waste, grain mountains, disposable razor blades ( wink.gif ), underproduction, milk lakes and low load factors are all testament to that.

The methods of preventing an abundance are even so mundane as the study of supply against demand to decide how many goods are to be produced. The capability to produce goods in numbers equal to demand is there (it all cost money though, because money, being scarce, is the limiting factor), but of course if that happened prices would crash, so only enough are produces so as to give the Capitalist the maximum profit.

On automation: Over 98% of all physical production of goods is already done by machines, and that figure still rises (though a lot slower now), and it is technically possible to get that to almost 100%. Similarly, most unpopular jobs, which usually involve much drudgery, can be automised (some of the simplest being repetitive factory jobs, which is why machines are so successful there). Let us take the example of toilet cleaning. I, and probably you as well, do not like the idea of cleaning toilets much, both the factor of disgust and boredom etc.. However, is the concept of self-cleaning toilets so fantastic? A technical problem, nothing more, and with an abundance and no money, easy to implement.

[philosopher]

If life offers a free lunch most people won’t work at all. Besides which raw materials are required, who would chose to go down a coal mine or empty dustbins for no pay.

Also we would all like to save the planet and the ultimate recycler will be the nano machine with the ability to change any material into any other and back again and which we would never finish developing without incentives.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:44 PM
Besides which raw materials are required, who would chose to go down a coal mine or empty dustbins for no pay.


Dangerous, drudgerous, and overly unpleseant jobs like coal mining (if it even exists after the revolution) will be automated or eliminated.

[Janus]

No they don't.
I think that he's talking about a solid political authoritarian transition which anarchists reject. However, most anarchists see the need for some type of economic transition possibly something such as collectives right?

[philosopher]

With no computers available that can supervise themselves people will be needed in every industry for a long time to come.

The medical profession alone needs doctors and an army of support workers and the construction industry has virtually no mechanisation this is why we ask if you are prepared to wait 1000 years. It would seem that some of us would happily go back to subsistence living (the public’s biggest fear of radicals).

I think that we in the west owe it to repair the damage that we have done in the third world and the assumption that we have enough to look after ourselves is not only wrong but selfish as well.

[nickdlc]

Also we would all like to save the planet and the ultimate recycler will be the nano machine with the ability to change any material into any other and back again and which we would never finish developing without incentives.
What's the incentive for recyling right now? Where i live you get no money for recycling, yet when the trucks come to pick up the recycling you can see that the vast majority of houses have their blue bin out.

This is a shame because i've read that recycling doesn't really accomplish anything (at least recycling plastic bottles).



If life offers a free lunch most people won’t work at all. This assertion has been disproved hundreds of times.

[Fistful of Steel]

To answer the topic title: If necessary, yes. If it can be achieved faster, than no of course not.

Blah blah blah dialectics blah blah blah materialism. I hope that clears things up.

[chimx]

so wait... are you saying the steam rising off of my freshly cooked ramen noodles is the End of History manifest? I had no idea revolution was so delicious.

[YSR]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)so wait... are you saying the steam rising off of my freshly cooked ramen noodles is the End of History manifest? I had no idea revolution was so delicious.[/b]

Oh, but it is.


philosopher
With no computers available that can supervise themselves people will be needed in every industry for a long time to come.

I guess I don't understand this. Are you saying the only way that communism/anarchism can come about is through no humans doing work? Obviously, humans will need to work. But we will work owning our own labor. We will work without bosses or the need of money forcing us to work.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by philosopher
The development of nano machines with the capability to transform matter into different forms of matter at an atomic level and having the ability to produce any quantity of commodities free of cost or labour time will occur in the distant future (possibly 1000 years away).
I don't think such technology is really 1000 years away. With the rate technology is now developing, that technology might be around in 50-100 years--or sooner. :o

Capitalism has proven to be good at something, and that is rapidly increasing the knowledge of technology. However, there should come a point where this system can no longer do such things efficiently. Hopefully then we'll see our desired revolution.

Also, many anarchists do want a type of transition--collectivism. That myth--that anarchists think we can go straight to full communism with a free access economy--is time to go.

[Black Dagger]

However, most anarchists see the need for some type of economic transition possibly something such as collectives right?


Of course.

[Nachie]

philosopher has only interpreted the world. the point, however, is to change it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

An Anarchist revolution calls for such specific views from the people that, especially in the US, it may take centuries.

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

Wait a second. Am I to believe that an anarchist is a communist? Why are the two words being associated?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Wait a second. Am I to believe that an anarchist is a communist? Why are the two words being associated?

Anarcho-communism, or Libertarian-communism is the belief that everyone everyone will co-exsist with one another by use of magical fairy. Preferably Peter Pan but any will do.

[Shredder]

Anarchism and communism are associated because, in this forum, many who call themselves communists or "lib-Marxists" are actually just anarchists. I use "anarcho-hippie" as the blanket term.

It would probably take billions and billions of years to reach the sophistication in material conditions needed for anarchist rapture--errr anarchist revolution.

[Brownfist]

My favorite quote by the French Marxist Henri Lefebvre, in my opininon, sums up this question perfectly. He roughly said, "I am a Marxist today so that I can be an anarchist tomorrow".

[redstar2000]

Pessimist Roll-call


Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry)An Anarchist revolution calls for such specific views from the people that, especially in the US, it may take centuries.[/b]

Maybe one or two. :)


Anarcho-communism, or Libertarian-communism is the belief that everyone everyone will co-exist with one another by use of magical fairy. Preferably Peter Pan but any will do.

Perhaps Tinkerbell? :lol:


Shredder
Anarchism and communism are associated because, in this forum, many who call themselves communists or "lib-Marxists" are actually just anarchists. I use "anarcho-hippie" as the blanket term.

I wonder what "blanket term" they apply to you?

How does "paleo-Leninist" sound? :lol:


It would probably take billions and billions of years to reach the sophistication in material conditions needed for anarchist rapture--errr anarchist revolution.

Since the earth's surface is not expected to remain habitable after another 250 million years or so, that "completely eliminates" the "anarchist option".

Congratulations! :lol:

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

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:15 AM
My favorite quote by the French Marxist Henri Lefebvre, in my opininon, sums up this question perfectly. He roughly said, "I am a Marxist today so that I can be an anarchist tomorrow".
That quote only makes sense if either

(a) He is assuming that the end-goals of Marxism are less libertarian than those of the Anarchists - which they patently are not.

Or

(b) That a post-revolutionary state will need to be smashed (as the Anarchists argue, although in the name of whom is a bit mysterious).

Or

© He's arguing that Marxism is the best analysis of how to smash capitalism, but the Anarchists have a better theory of how a post capitalist society should be developed - although, of course, that can only be determined in practice the other side of the revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+May 7 2006, 11:49 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ May 7 2006, 11:49 PM)
Wait a second. Am I to believe that an anarchist is a communist? Why are the two words being associated?

Anarcho-communism, or Libertarian-communism is the belief that everyone everyone will co-exsist with one another by use of magical fairy. Preferably Peter Pan but any will do. [/b]
Stop spamming the theory forum otherwise you'll receive a warning point. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking so please position an argument against anarchist communism or shut the fuck up.


theCruzanCheGuevara: Posted on May 7 [email protected] 10:47 PM
Wait a second. Am I to believe that an anarchist is a communist? Why are the two words being associated?

Communism was coined by Marx to describe the final stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The creation of a society which is stateless and therefore classless, which operates economically on the basis "from each according to ability to each according to need."

Anarchism developed as a direct rejection of the authoritarian nature of Marxism which advocates the use of the state in order to create a transition from capitalism to communism.

Bakunin rejected the idea and the anarchists positioned different analyses of the state and its effects on the political and economic process.

Bakunin predicted that a "workers" state would eventually develop into a red bureaucracy and because of the nature of the state would invariably corrupt the revolution. These predictions proved right.

Anarchism advocates the complete destruction of the state and the decentralisation of power to collectives who operate federally, rather than using a centralised state controlled by a political party (often referred to as democratic centralism). Spain is a prime example of that in practice.

Anarchism also rejects hierarchy and political, social and economic authority as paramount to the survival of a revolution and the creation of a workers society. It is often these aspects of anarchism that people like leftyhenry find so difficult to comprehend, mostly through their inability to think outside of the party line or indeed the reading of books.

Anarchism has over the years developed into many different variations, the most notable is anarchist communism or anarcho-communism which is specifically workerist in its outlook and approach and which uses anarchist principles to reach a communist society.

It was developed by Bakunin and Malatesta and then later Kropotkin who did extensive work on the subject. Alexander Berkman also wrote a book called 'What is anarchist communism' which is located on the net in various places. It is a very easy to read understanding of the theory.

There is also a large Anarchist Communist international and of course the Anarchist Federation in Britain which is specifically anarcho-communist.

Any questions, I'd be happy to oblige.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:44 PM
It would seem that some of us would happily go back to subsistence living (the public’s biggest fear of radicals).


I doubt that any serious leftist would argue for a return to a subsistence standard of living.

At the same time, the rampant consumerism which is necessary to capitalist accumulation will obviously not pertain to a socialist/communist society.

Consumerism, as a central ideological plank of capitalism (and something that many in the West need freeing from) is also linked to the practices of transnational corporations (General Motors, Sony, Nike, etc.).

As an ideology, consumerism promotes individualism over collective association; privatisation over social interaction; crass materialism over self-actualisation. It promotes the idea that consumer choice (at the micro level) is the highest form of democracy.

As such, we should never shrink from attacking it as a form of alienation, rooted in the relations of production and see it as a brake on the development of revolutionary consciousness.

After the revolution I would expect to see some scaling down of people's 'material wealth' - particularly if this is measured by the bourgeois conception outlined above. For a start, there will be an absence of corporate entities pushing useless goods our way. I would also expect to see a more localised form of production (particularly food) taking root. After all, there won't be any Tesco or Wallmarts open (ever again).

It's the hope of all marxists and anarchists that the new society will be one that locates itself not only in terms of achieving immense equality but also addresses a more humanistic conception of social relationships. Hopefully, the streets of our post revolutionary cities will not be full of people plugged into their own little worlds via their mp3 players. Hopefully, they'll be too busy taking part in the reconstruction of their life, community and society.

In the future, the notion that human happiness can be fulfilled through the accumulation of "high-quality/high-status" commodities will be seen as ludicrous as the idea that one can cure disease through the power of prayer.

[Brownfist]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+May 8 2006, 09:21 AM--> (Citizen Zero @ May 8 2006, 09:21 AM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 08:15 AM
My favorite quote by the French Marxist Henri Lefebvre, in my opininon, sums up this question perfectly. He roughly said, "I am a Marxist today so that I can be an anarchist tomorrow".
That quote only makes sense if either

(a) He is assuming that the end-goals of Marxism are less libertarian than those of the Anarchists - which they patently are not.

Or

(b) That a post-revolutionary state will need to be smashed (as the Anarchists argue, although in the name of whom is a bit mysterious).

Or

© He's arguing that Marxism is the best analysis of how to smash capitalism, but the Anarchists have a better theory of how a post capitalist society should be developed - although, of course, that can only be determined in practice the other side of the revolution. [/b]
Well, Lefebvre was kicked out the French Communist Party around 1968 and was consistently in trouble with the party due to his unorthodox political views. Basically, Lefebvre was unable to deal with the Stalinism of the French Communist Party. When I think of that quote I think it suggests two things:
1) There is a consistent need for critique and revolutionary practice. Due to the experience of the Soviet Union and the entrechnment of authoritarian tendencies within the Soviet Union he would argue that "Communists" would be unable to follow through with a revolution that would allow for the withering away of the state. However, he did feel that being a Marxist was the best approach to non-socialist countries. Furthermore, this appropriation of the term "anarchism" brings back to light the originally departure between the two tendencies, yet the similarity between them. Anarchism disagreed with the Marxist arguement that a post-revolutionary scenario required the formation of a post-revolutionary state apparatus. I think Lefebvre would argue that anarchism could provide the next revolutionary movement by which to push socialism to communism. Additionally, the ability to critique the socio-economic political conditions in a socialist state is difficult for Marxists who have become entrenched in the system and thus necessicitate anarchist critiques.

2) It also demonstrates perhaps his frustration with what he sees are the necessary conditions for anarchism. I think he would argue that being a Marxist today and allow for Marxist revolution will create the necessary conditions for an anarchist movement. This could be due to what he considered are the failures of the '68 rebellion in Paris. I think that in orthodox anarchism would suggest that similar to Marxism, the revolution will be organized by workers who will continue to change their means of production to the point that no longer necessitates a state. Thus, the subject position of Marxist today, allows for the rise of a new subject-position tomorrow which allows for anarchist revolutionary. It also speaks of the less authoritarian tendencies with the Marxist movement who are less invested in establishing their own regimes as compared to achieving the final goal.

[philosopher]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 8 2006, 02:06 PM
After all, there won't be any Tesco or Wallmarts open (ever again).




Are we to be frogmarched at pistol point into the fields while you bulldoze the superstores?

Are we to be detained until your think police have purged the memory of one stop shops from our minds?

[Nachie]

This thread is waaaay too crazy for me, but I just wanted to pop my nose in to correct TAT on a couple points:

First, that anarchism (or anarchist thinkers and philosophy, if not in name) predates "Marxism" and did not arise solely as a reaction to it via Bakunin.

Second, that Marx definitely did not coin the word - or concept - of "communism". There is a pretty decent (albeit anti-Marxist) anarchist history of the term available HERE (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1555).

And that's all I had to say.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

TAT, my point is that it'll never work. there are infinite problems with it. First the revolution. libcoms essentially believe that there should be no vanguard or leaders. The protalerait should rise up and over power capitalism. This is nice but honestly think about it. With the technolgy governments have today; tracers, missliles, F-16's and the type of Armyies capitalists have, it is perposterous to think that even the largest of revolutions can be unplanned. I'm sorry but m-60's beat crowbars hands down. Second, the time. Getting 80-90% support from the people will take centuries. Look at how bad the image of communism is in the US present day. It won't get better for a while thanks to Stalin. Third, Let's say we are able to successfully revolt and gain support. What will stop people from stealing, rape, murder, and taking advantage of the system when there is no central government? Nothing.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by philosopher+May 8 2006, 06:34 PM--> (philosopher @ May 8 2006, 06:34 PM)
Citizen [email protected] 8 2006, 02:06 PM
After all, there won't be any Tesco or Wallmarts open (ever again).




Are we to be frogmarched at pistol point into the fields while you bulldoze the superstores?

Are we to be detained until your think police have purged the memory of one stop shops from our minds? [/b]
Well, if by 'we' you mean the workers - they'll be the ones doing the bulldozing. If, however, you mean the petite bourgeois elements who want to cling on to their Prada accessories and SUVs, then, yes, we'll frogmarch them into the fields. Afterall, there'll be potatos to plant and it'll be good for their souls.

[philosopher]

[/QUOTE]philosopher
Are we to be frogmarched at pistol point into the fields while you bulldoze the superstores?
Are we to be detained until your think police have purged the memory of one stop shops from our minds?

[/QUOTE] Citizen Zero
Well, if by 'we' you mean the workers - they'll be the ones doing the bulldozing. If, however, you mean the petite bourgeois elements who want to cling on to their Prada accessories and SUVs, then, yes, we'll frogmarch them into the fields. Afterall, there'll be potatos to plant and it'll be good for their souls.[/QUOTE]



That’s how Pol Pot started.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:16 AM






Are we to be frogmarched at pistol point into the fields while you bulldoze the superstores?
Are we to be detained until your think police have purged the memory of one stop shops from our minds?


Well, if by 'we' you mean the workers - they'll be the ones doing the bulldozing. If, however, you mean the petite bourgeois elements who want to cling on to their Prada accessories and SUVs, then, yes, we'll frogmarch them into the fields. Afterall, there'll be potatos to plant and it'll be good for their souls.[/QUOTE]
That’s how Pol Pot started. [/quote]
Oh, you're serious! :unsure:

Are you suggesting then that we'll keep Wallmart - a company which exists in order to exploit both labourers and consumers - after the revolution, the only difference is that it'll be under workers control, but otherwise functioning the same as before?

Workers of the world accessorize! You have a world to buy!

Would that be a more appropriate slogan for you?

[philosopher]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 8 2006, 06:34 PM
After all, there won't be any Tesco or Wallmarts open (ever again).




In Victorian England ruthless traders would mix chalk in with flour and also more poisonous substances to cut the cost. Brand names were started so that it would identify the source. Greed of capitalism has abused the system; It’s not the fault of the brand or store name

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade Zero
After all, there'll be potatos to plant and it'll be good for their souls.

The suggestion that agricultural grunt work is "good for people's souls" is well within the Maoist paradigm...which Pol Pot took much further than Mao ever did in his effort to establish "peasant communism" in Cambodia.


Are you suggesting then that we'll keep Wal-mart?

I think the "big boxes" would be quite useful...as distribution centers for free stuff -- not as places to buy and sell. There's plenty of room to store things that are either new or things that people don't need or use anymore and can "give back" to the community so that someone else may use them who actually needs them.

A lot of stuff that's still useful ends up in a landfill somewhere because there's no practical way to get it to the people who could use it. :(

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

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:54 PM
First, that anarchism (or anarchist thinkers and philosophy, if not in name) predates "Marxism" and did not arise solely as a reaction to it via Bakunin.
Any anarchism worth talking about did.


Second, that Marx definitely did not coin the word - or concept - of "communism".

Maybe my English isnt very clear, but what I meant was he coined the phrase to specifically refer to the final stage of the transition, not that he coined the meaning of the word.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 9 2006, 12:54 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 9 2006, 12:54 AM)
Comrade Zero
After all, there'll be potatos to plant and it'll be good for their souls.

The suggestion that agricultural grunt work is "good for people's souls" is well within the Maoist paradigm...which Pol Pot took much further than Mao ever did in his effort to establish "peasant communism" in Cambodia.

[/b]
And it's a suggestion I make with a pinch of humour. Chill.


I think the "big boxes" would be quite useful...as distribution centers for free stuff -- not as places to buy and sell. There's plenty of room to store things that are either new or things that people don't need or use anymore and can "give back" to the community so that someone else may use them who actually needs them.

Indeed, but Wal-mart isn't a "big box", it's a privately owned company which thrives on exploitation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:41 PM
TAT, my point is that it'll never work. there are infinite problems with it. First the revolution.
Do you think that you have proposing something new and unthought of. These arguments have been positioned for decades. You're not saying anything new.


libcoms essentially believe that there should be no vanguard or leaders. The protalerait should rise up and over power capitalism. This is nice but honestly think about it. With the technolgy governments have today; tracers, missliles, F-16's and the type of Armyies capitalists have, it is perposterous to think that even the largest of revolutions can be unplanned.

Nobody, least of all anarchists have argued that a revolution should or could be unplanned.

Rejectinh the need for a vanguard does not mean a negation of organisation. Anarchists advocate massive organisation, just different organistion to the vanguard.


I'm sorry but m-60's beat crowbars hands down. Second, the time. Getting 80s to Stalin. Third, Let's say we are able to successfully revolt and gain support. What will stop people from stealing, rape, murder, and taking advantage of the system when there is no central government?

First of all, I reject the idea that people, in a revlutionary situation will steal, rape and murder if there is no one to tell them not to.

The point of a revolution is to liberate yourselves and no matter what revolution it is there is going to need to be some consensus on wanting the damn thing.

Also, we have a central government now and there is still stealing, rape and murder that happens daily so why is that such a key aspect in stopping those things.

I would also like to know how you intend, with your vanguard to get all this equipment you imply the vanguard can get and please tell me why it would be any different without a vanguard.

Does the vanguard have a magical wand?

[philosopher]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 9 2006, 01:10 AM


Indeed, but Wal-mart isn't a "big box", it's a privately owned company which thrives on exploitation.
Does an anarchist revolution not do away with private ownership then? So what does it do?

[milk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:49 PM

Wait a second. Am I to believe that an anarchist is a communist? Why are the two words being associated?

Anarcho-communism, or Libertarian-communism is the belief that everyone everyone will co-exsist with one another by use of magical fairy. Preferably Peter Pan but any will do.
That isn't exactly true. I'm sure you are aware of the feud between Bakunin and Marx in the First International? The statist, stagist ideas of building a communist society haven't exactly been helped by the use of Democratic Centralism in making revolution from below. :D

I agree that the jacobin tactics of some anarchist groups in Russia for example at the turn of the last century, Chernoe Znamia being the most well known, didn't inspire the kind of spontaneous action hoped for among workers. But that kind of conspiratorial action and organisation was done so by Marxists too, partuiclarly the Bolsheviks. But for Leninists to lay claim to only seeing one party acting in the interests, and indeed leading a whole class sells short working class ability and potential for self-organisation, as a decent example of that in reference again to Russia, is the first worker's committee in that country, that sprang up Ivanono-Voznesensk in May 1905. As for trades unions, anarcho-syndicalism has a militant, and very much working class history to it.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by "The Anarchist Tension"
Any anarchism worth talking about did.
Fair enough. Proudhon was a deek...


Maybe my English isnt very clear, but what I meant was he coined the phrase to specifically refer to the final stage of the transition, not that he coined the meaning of the word.
Hmmm but that's not right, either. Marx didn't see communism as a final stage of anything, but a word used to describe the process of transition itself (presumably, towards "anarchy"):

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from premises now in existence." (The German Ideology)

[anomaly]

I think Marx was simplifying things a bit their, presumably to gain supporters.

But if we begin playing the quote game, well alright, but there are plenty of instances in which Marx refers to communism as the society succeeding capitalism...not just the movement.

I think TAT was, for all practical purposes, correct.

Of course, that doesn't mean that you, Nachie, have to see communism as 'the final stage'.

[cenv]

What will stop people from stealing, rape, murder, and taking advantage of the system when there is no central government? Nothing.
That sounds a little anti-communist to me. Do you not support the eventual establishment of a classless, stateless society?

Either way, not having an extremely centralized government does not mean crime will be allowed to run rampant. Additionally, I think we should expect theft to dramatically decrease after socialism and, eventually, communism have been obtained.

[milk]

Why do Marxist-Leninists favour centralisaton of state functions in regard to building socialism?

[anomaly]

What will stop people from stealing, rape, murder, and taking advantage of the system when there is no central government? Nothing.
Did you realize that every central government is made up of people just as fallible as you or I? An interesting revelation that is. :lol:

Why can't the people govern the people? Why should we rely on our 'superiors'?

[Nachie]

I think Marx would describe communist society as one "still in transition". What was important for Marx was not the study of the exact blueprint of post-capitalism, but what anti-capitalism as a material movement of the proletariat (communism) means right here and now. Obviously the characteristics, inner contradictions, and strategies it adopts will form part of the society it creates, hence communism as a society, but not a fixed point in time.

[anomaly]

Aight. I can drink to that.

[Nachie]

http://goombalooza.com/albums/album30/cheers.jpg

Salud!

[Shredder]

"Massive organization", meaning decentralized organization, is an oxymoron.

Organize.

ORGAN.ize

Greater organization is a synonymn for greater division of labor, and it will always entail greater centralization of planning. That's what communism is all about in the first place, uniting separate means of production under one cooperative plan. The means of production produce as the plan tells them too. The mind thinks and the body does. If we were to undo this organization, its description would instead tell us that the means of production plan themselves. Which is what happens in capitalism.

The libcom decentralized revolution will always meet up with a centralized counterrevolutionary force -> will to power -> the centralized force supplants the decentralized.

Class warfare, transitional program, dual power, dictatorship of the proletariat. There is no anarchist revolution without these "Leninist" constructs.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:02 AM
Hmmm but that's not right, either. Marx didn't see communism as a final stage of anything, but a word used to describe the process of transition itself
Marx did see communism as the final transition of capitalism. Whether he thought communism would continue to develop and change is of no relevance to my point.


(presumably, towards "anarchy"):

That's quite a speculative presumption and can never ever be proven to be fact.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:55 AM
Greater organization is a synonymn for greater division of labor, and it will always entail greater centralization of planning.

That is historically inaccurate.


That's what communism is all about in the first place, uniting separate means of production under one cooperative plan. The means of production produce as the plan tells them too. The mind thinks and the body does. If we were to undo this organization, its description would instead tell us that the means of production plan themselves. Which is what happens in capitalism.

I can accept that, but there is a fundamental difference between centralising a plan and centralising political, economic and social power and functions.


The libcom decentralized revolution will always meet up with a centralized counterrevolutionary force -> will to power -> the centralized force supplants the decentralized.

This is speculation not fact.


Class warfare, transitional program, dual power, dictatorship of the proletariat. There is no anarchist revolution without these "Leninist" constructs.

Lenin didn't conceieve of the concept of centralisation.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2006, 12:18 PM
That's quite a speculative presumption and can never ever be proven to be fact.
But, but... "classless, stateless society" :unsure:

Whatever, it's no big deal and I'll buy you a beer when we get there.

[philosopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:54 AM


I think the "big boxes" would be quite useful...as distribution centers for free stuff -- not as places to buy and sell. There's plenty of room to store things that are either new or things that people don't need or use anymore and can "give back" to the community so that someone else may use them who actually needs them.

A lot of stuff that's still useful ends up in a landfill somewhere because there's no practical way to get it to the people who could use it. :(

Why would anyone give away anything that could be sold? It’s difficult enough to get anyone to recycle.

Wouldn’t these free exchange centres just be used for unofficial rubbish dumps where people would “fly tip” unwanted household and hazardous waste. Isn’t that what they’re used for now.

Maybe you are considering having paid staff to control them if so who decides how much the staff should be paid to work in these free exchange utopian units.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Nachie+May 9 2006, 02:41 PM--> (Nachie @ May 9 2006, 02:41 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2006, 12:18 PM
That's quite a speculative presumption and can never ever be proven to be fact.
But, but... "classless, stateless society" :unsure: [/b]
Well yeah, that's communism...?

Marx never really talking about doing away with hierarchy or authority, which is what I thought you were referring to when you said communism progressing to anarchy...?


Whatever, it's no big deal and I'll buy you a beer when we get there.

Aww thanks.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by philosopher
Why would anyone give away anything that could be sold?

Because there's no money in a communist society and therefore no "buying" and "selling".


Wouldn’t these free exchange centres just be used for unofficial rubbish dumps where people would “fly tip” unwanted household and hazardous waste.

No.


Maybe you are considering having paid staff to control them...

No such thing as "paid staff".

You need to get your head out of capitalist preconceptions to talk intelligently about communist society and how it might work.

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

[philosopher]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 9 2006, 05:15 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 9 2006, 05:15 PM)
philosopher
Why would anyone give away anything that could be sold?

Because there's no money in a communist society and therefore no "buying" and "selling".


Wouldn’t these free exchange centres just be used for unofficial rubbish dumps where people would “fly tip” unwanted household and hazardous waste.

No.


Maybe you are considering having paid staff to control them...

No such thing as "paid staff".

You need to get your head out of capitalist preconceptions to talk intelligently about communist society and how it might work.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif[/b]
So you are speculating on a revolution which won’t occur in our lifetime.

Anyway why would anyone want second-hand goods if everything is free?

I think you know my views on communist society and I would hope that there will be a more just world between now and then.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 11:53 PM
So you are speculating on a revolution which won’t occur in our lifetime.

Anyway why would anyone want second-hand goods if everything is free?

I think you know my views on communist society and I would hope that there will be a more just world between now and then.
Communism is fundamentally about destroying capitalism, and everything that comes with it.

To take a "real life" example, let's say a person goes to job 8 hours every day. He is in a job that he never wanted. Even if he has an alright education, this is what reality is like. The only reason he works like this is because that is what he has to do, in order to get paid and survive.

Communism is about destroying "work" as we know it today, not promoting it. :angry:

For us to be capable of that, we would need to destroy the money system. We can do this now, because more and more technology is developed, meaning more and more machines do the labour instead of humans.

We are entering the time where communism actually is viable, for the first time.

[philosopher]

Originally posted by Keiza+May 9 2006, 06:14 PM--> (Keiza @ May 9 2006, 06:14 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 11:53 PM
So you are speculating on a revolution which won’t occur in our lifetime.

Anyway why would anyone want second-hand goods if everything is free?

I think you know my views on communist society and I would hope that there will be a more just world between now and then.
Communism is fundamentally about destroying capitalism, and everything that comes with it.

To take a "real life" example, let's say a person goes to job 8 hours every day. He is in a job that he never wanted. Even if he has an alright education, this is what reality is like. The only reason he works like this is because that is what he has to do, in order to get paid and survive.

Communism is about destroying "work" as we know it today, not promoting it. :angry:

For us to be capable of that, we would need to destroy the money system. We can do this now, because more and more technology is developed, meaning more and more machines do the labour instead of humans.

We are entering the time where communism actually is viable, for the first time. [/b]
Reality is that millions live in poverty and many in the third world have to forage for scraps in a rubbish dump for survival. Even if you ignore the moral imperative these people must be raised to a decent living standard before any country can introduce a free moneyless society otherwise someone will have to shoot economic immigrants as the try to cross your electric fences to gain entry to your utopia.

Only a long period with a workable global socialist economy will be able to eliminate world poverty

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by philosopher
Reality is that millions live in poverty and many in the third world have to forage for scraps in a rubbish dump for survival. Even if you ignore the moral imperative these people must be raised to a decent living standard before any country can introduce a free moneyless society otherwise someone will have to shoot economic immigrants as the try to cross your electric fences to gain entry to your utopia.

Only a long period with a workable global socialist economy will be able to eliminate world poverty.

Nope. When the imperialist stranglehold of the "old" capitalist countries is removed, then those countries will pass through the same stages of development that the old capitalist countries did.

They will be perfectly capable of "developing" themselves into modern societies.

Nor is it likely that many will "want" to emmigrate to a "communist country"...when their own countries are already developing.

Domestic capitalism is perfectly capable of reducing poverty to acceptable levels...it has done so in many countries.

The idea of "global socialism" is just another excuse for putting off communism indefinitely.

No...that's unacceptable.

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

[bezdomni]

The idea of "global socialism" is just another excuse for putting off communism indefinitely.

Global socialism in the ultraleftist sense that "all countries should develop socialism at the same time" or the Trotskyist sense that international socialist revolution is a necessary precursor for communism? Or both?

[philosopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:19 AM


Nope. When the imperialist stranglehold of the "old" capitalist countries is removed, then those countries will pass through the same stages of development that the old capitalist countries did.

They will be perfectly capable of "developing" themselves into modern societies.

Nor is it likely that many will "want" to emmigrate to a "communist country"...when their own countries are already developing.

Domestic capitalism is perfectly capable of reducing poverty to acceptable levels...it has done so in many countries.

The idea of "global socialism" is just another excuse for putting off communism indefinitely.

No...that's unacceptable.


They are already migrating in their millions; the idea that they will ignore a free society and wait in their slums for years is ludicrous

[Shredder]

Redstar continues to outdo his own psychoses.

Domestic capitalism has developed 'some countries' but has been directly responsible for holding the rest of them down. The countries that didn't get in on capitalism a few hundred years ago are eternally stuck in stasis except where they cheat and use the power of a centralized economy to catch up. Capitalism is the definition of a pyramid scheme, incapable of building up the bottom of the pyramid. The developing countries, in this hypothetical socialism in one country situation, would either continue be economically enslaved by the communist countries, or else isolated from them and thus unable to benefit from the division of labor and comparitive advantage of the earth, and therefore bereft of enough cumulative surplus value needed to advance the means of production.

Which brings me to the real "excuse" for "putting off communism indefinitely". The delusional utopia you ultralefters call communism is what real Marxists call the second stage of communism. It requires absurdly advanced means of production. Real communists don't expect the second stage of communism to ever become reality. It's merely a point, a horizon that we always move toward without ever arriving.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by philosopher+--> (philosopher)They are already migrating in their millions; the idea that they will ignore a free society and wait in their slums for years is ludicrous.[/b]

They migrate because things in their own countries are hopeless.

When the imperialists are gone, then things won't look so bad.

In fact, I expect them to look pretty good.


Shredder
The countries that didn't get in on capitalism a few hundred years ago are eternally stuck in stasis except where they cheat and use the power of a centralized economy to catch up.

South Korea? Taiwan? Malaysia?

Anyway, if the Leninists take over some backward country and develop it through a centralized economy, why should we care?


The developing countries, in this hypothetical socialism in one country situation, would either continue be economically enslaved by the communist countries, or else isolated from them and thus unable to benefit from the division of labor and comparative advantage of the earth, and therefore bereft of enough cumulative surplus value needed to advance the means of production.

Oh sure...communist countries are going to raise professional armies to keep the "third world" enslaved.

Trying for the Dumbass of 2006 prize? :lol:


Which brings me to the real "excuse" for "putting off communism indefinitely". The delusional utopia you ultralefters call communism is what real Marxists call the second stage of communism. It requires absurdly advanced means of production. Real communists don't expect the second stage of communism to ever become reality. It's merely a point, a horizon that we always move toward without ever arriving.

Well, I asked for honesty...and here it is.

No real communism "ever". Just endless generations of wage-slaves supporting Leninist parasites!

I'd tell you where you can shove that idea...but I think you already know.

Where you plucked it from! :angry:

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

[Shredder]

Economically enslaved, buddy. Trying for the poor reading comprehension of 2006 award? As in, if they trade with the communist countries, the equal exchanges of commodities will actually be unequal, and if they do not trade at all, they will also be crippled as I stated in the quote.

What we have here is, on the one hand, Marxists, who expect to improve working conditions & increase abundance, through the abolition of class society and the centralized, cooperative planning of production for use instead of for profit; and, on the other hand, Redstar and his acolytes who expect everyone to spontaneously start sharing freely and producing only what they enjoy producing for no compensation. I will leave it to the reader to decide which is the feasible materialist model, and which is the idealist dogma, spiraling further into delusion with each successive post.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The idea of "global socialism" is just another excuse for putting off communism indefinitely.

I think that's a misunderstanding. global socialism measn that it is vital for the survival of communism/socialism that every nation bcomes communist. I personally see it as a second priority but it in no way is meant to put of communism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Shredder
I will leave it to the reader to decide which is the feasible materialist model, and which is the idealist dogma, spiraling further into delusion with each successive post.

How kind of you. I'm sure that if you ever have the opportunity, you will be somewhat less accommodating.

Your "appeal to practicality" is not going to fly here.

Despotism is practical...but that's not what we want.

So shove it! :angry:

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by RS2K+--> (RS2K)Your "appeal to practicality" is not going to fly here.[/b]
Though I sense some sarcasm here, I'll go ahead and say that I don't find his program very 'practical' at all.

For example...

Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)Greater organization is a synonymn for greater division of labor, and it will always entail greater centralization of planning. [/b]
Why, he's coughing up Leninism! The 'centralization' clearly means hierarchy, and we all know what that means, as far as Lennies are concerned: do not question thy leadership!

Is such a program practical for our goals (of communism)? Certainly not. Rather, we all know what this will lead to. The same thing it led to last time.

Practical in the third world, yes, but for our purposes, Leninism's time has come and gone.


[email protected]
centralized, cooperative planning of production for use instead of for profit
Bringing in the bureacracy, eh? Because we all know how 'practical' they are. :lol:


Shredder
Real communists don't expect the second stage of communism to ever become reality.
Leninism forever! :lol:

How 'practical' of him.


Well, none of that sounds very practical from a communist perspective. It stinks of idoltry...and bureacracy...and the old 'socialist' states...but not practicality.

[Shredder]

Who are you addressing your reply to? While you quoted me, you seem to be writing to Dear Redstar. I guess I shouldn't be suprised, since you already copy his excessive use of quote excerptions, one line paragraphs, and random bold, not to mention his schizophrenic paranoia of "Leninists" and impossible utopian beliefs. It would just make sense that all you really want to do is prove yourself to him by sucking up thoroughly. So good job with that.

Although, I still win. You value the abstract concept of anarchy more than you actually value the progress in the living conditions of the world. I explained that real Marxists aim to take the property relations of the world to the next level, the classless level, in order to continue to grow toward less work for more reward for everyone. Your response is essentially that you reject all that progress because you think it might have bureaucratic problems. To you, The Idea anarchy trumps material reality.

[anomaly]

I actually disagreed with redstar's assessment that your ideas were 'practical'.

Also, you're wrong. I reject your nice Lennie ideas because the same old shit is going to happen again. The idea of 'world Leninism' with big, pretty banners everywhere isn't my idea of progress. Marxist rhetoric or not, it is still despotism.

[KC]

Real communists don't expect the second stage of communism to ever become reality.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[anomaly]

Don't you know? He's a real communist! And real communists don't want communism. :lol:

[Zero]

Yes... we live to be hypocritical.

[Shredder]

What the fuck are you talking about?

For someone titled "Lenin rulez" I'd think you'd know. Marx expounds on the matter in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Lenin explains it in great detail and very accurately, as I will show below. I have attempted to abbreviate it as much as possible, but a full explanation cannot be written in a single sentence, despite the trend amongst RevLeft anarchists:

-----From The State and Revolution, editted for length----------
Without building utopias, Marx defined more fully what can be defined now regarding this future, namely, the differences between the lower and higher phases (levels, stages) of communist society.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx goes into detail to disprove Lassalle's idea that under socialism the worker will receive the “undiminished” or "full product of his labor". Marx shows that from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, a fund for the replacement of the "wear and tear" of machinery, and so on. Then, from the means of consumption must be deducted a fund for administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, old people's homes, and so on.

Instead of Lassalle's hazy, obscure, general phrase ("the full product of his labor to the worker"), Marx makes a sober estimate of exactly how socialist society will have to manage its affairs. Marx proceeds to make a concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there will be no capitalism, and says:

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).

Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society.Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.

Marx continues:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.

This expropriation will make it possible for the productive forces to develop to a tremendous extent. And when we see how incredibly capitalism is already retarding this development, when we see how much progress could be achieved on the basis of the level of technique already attained, we are entitled to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labor, of doing away with the antithesis between mental and physical labor, of transforming labor into "life's prime want"--we do not and cannot know.

That is why we are entitled to speak only of the inevitable withering away of the state, emphasizing the protracted nature of this process and its dependence upon the rapidity of development of the higher phase of communism, and leaving the question of the time required for, or the concrete forms of, the withering away quite open, because there is no material for answering these questions.

From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare that such a social order is "sheer utopia" and to sneer at the socialists for promising everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the labor of the individual citizen, any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Even to this day, most bourgeois “savants” confine themselves to sneering in this way, thereby betraying both their ignorance and their selfish defence of capitalism.

Ignorance--for it has never entered the head of any socialist to “promise” that the higher phase of the development of communism will arrive (((Almost my words exactly!))) [...] In fact, when a learned professor, followed by the philistine, followed in turn by the Tseretelis and Chernovs, talks of wild utopias, of the demagogic promises of the Bolsheviks, of the impossibility of “introducing” socialism, it is the higher stage, or phase, of communism he has in mind, which no one has ever promised or even thought to “introduce”, because, generally speaking, it cannot be “introduced”.

Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labor and wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing father, from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". By what stages, by means of what practical measures humanity will proceed to this supreme aim we do not and cannot know.
--------------------------------------------

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

An Anarchist revolution calls for such specific views from the people that, especially in the US, it may take centuries.

We already knew that a revolution in this country would take centuries. Everything counter-revolutionary is so deeply imbedded into this society that it may in fact never happen. The problem is that we aren't working hard enough to put the true meaning about our ideas out or at least not to enough people. The public is constantly being fooled and all we do is sit aside, talk amongst ourselves and pretend like this will happen eventually. Nothing will happen unless we make it happen (“The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.” Ernesto Che Guevara) and although we will most not likely live long enough to see the revolution take place there are things we can do to strengthen the revolution and bring about its coming sooner.

There is an old Jewish story that tells of an old man who plants a tree that wont produce fruit nor provide shade within the mans life time. Knowing this he plants the seed of this tree anyway and takes care of it. A younger man approaches the man and says “sir why do you care for this plant? It shall never protect you from the sun. It shall never provide you with fruit. Why labor over something that does nothing for you?”
The old man looked at him and said, “Though it wont provide for me it shall provide for oncoming generations this will be my gift to the children of the future. So they will have something”

It is our job to plant the seeds of revolution in the masses. Due to George Bush type politicians and their influence on the media, education and in result the minds of the people, communism will be considered amongst the influenced men who make up a majority as the USSR or Cuba, what they read about in their history books. But we know better than that comrades. Therefore instead of complaining about the faults of society we should correct their misinterpretation of what we represent and try to aid them in at least taking the steps to achieving this idea.

Viva La Revolucion!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Shredder
The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist...

Then who needs it? :angry:

You and Herr Lenin can take your "bourgeois right" and SHOVE IT!

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

[Shredder]

Do you reject historical materialism?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:55 AM
Do you reject historical materialism?
See for yourself...

Using Historical Materialism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1139269704&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The grotesque mis-use of historical materialism in the Leninist paradigm must be rejected by revolutionaries, of course.

Wherein we are informed that there ain't nothing on the menu but shit sandwiches for the next few centuries.

The people who say this are acting from such brazen self-interest as to be simply contemptible.

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

[KC]

You and Herr Lenin can take your "bourgeois right" and SHOVE IT!

It was Marx that advocated the "lower stage of communism", i.e. the "dictatorship of the proletariat", i.e. "socialism". So you can stop ranting about Lenin and start ranting about Marx now ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12 2006, 02:38 AM


You and Herr Lenin can take your "bourgeois right" and SHOVE IT!

It was Marx that advocated the "lower stage of communism", i.e. the "dictatorship of the proletariat", i.e. "socialism". So you can stop ranting about Lenin and start ranting about Marx now ;)
In the fucking 1870s!

You presumably wish to engrave his words in stone so as to facilitate your access to that corner office on the 50th floor in the "Ministry of Eternal Transition".

PISS OFF! :angry:

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

This topic, up until now, had seemed pretty drab....then "Shredder" entered! Without trying to have a "dig", there seems to have been quite a few "Marxist-Leninists" who have come to this board recently who have acted like complete nutballs! :lol:


Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)Marx expounds on the matter in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.[/b]

Admittedly, it's a while since I read the Critique of the Gotha Programme (which is, when all is said and done, a pretty mundane work that can almost be described as a primitive attack on reformism), but I really don't see how it backs up "Shredder's" positions....that basically, communism is "impossible".


Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx goes into detail to disprove Lassalle's idea that under socialism the worker will receive the “undiminished” or "full product of his labor". Marx shows that from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, a fund for the replacement of the "wear and tear" of machinery, and so on. Then, from the means of consumption must be deducted a fund for administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, old people's homes, and so on.[/b]

You didn't point to a specific quote, so I guess this tit-bit sums up what you are saying....


Originally posted by Marx
Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

Chapter 1. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

Does anyone, bar "Shredder", think that a communist society won't be able to "replace" and "expand" the means of production or "provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc."???

I mean, if the "second stage of communism" can't do these things, then what you are essentially saying, is that the "second stage of communism " is "the end of history"! :o

No further technological advances, no further replacements for the means of production and so on; essentially, in "Shredder's" view, we "have" to live under a Party despotism until all possible means of technological innovation are finished....which will basically be never.


Originally posted by Marx
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Chapter 1. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

There are, essentially, three points we need to take into consideration here:

1) Marx wrote this in 1875....meaning this analysis of post-revolutionary society, is essentially based on the productive capacity of 19th century England.

2) Marx is talking about a society "just as it emerges"....that is, just in the sense of "Only a moment ago" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=just) has this society emerged.

Now, we can speculate all day upon how "long" or "short" Marx thought this "just emerged" situation would last; but as he says a communist society will develop "on its own foundations", suggests that he didn't think that the "second stage of communism" was "merely a point, a horizon that we always move toward without ever arriving."

Marx's references to the process of child birth may give us a hint as to how long he thought the scenario quoted above would last....essentially until the society became an adult; around 20 years.

That estimate would have been based, as I mentioned, on the conditions of late 19th century England....so really, based on advances in production, the time in which a post-revolutionary society will need to develop "on its own foundations" (and of course, the foundations already laid!) has been significantly reduced.

I speculated that Marx thought this scenario would be around for 20 years, in my estimation, it will be around for 5 to 10 years....at the most.

3) Marx, to my ears, sounds like he's discussing some kind of TLV scheme based on labour input....boring shit I know. But essentially, we know that the old USSR operated under a wage-labour system and I really doubt that the "same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another" type of scenario happened ever in the old USSR. The Party bureaucrats, after all, certainly were over compensated. :lol:

But aside from this, you see in even Marx's thinking in ascendant England the basic idea that wage-labour needs to be abolished and that some radically new system needs to replace it.

In summary, this quote does not support the idea that the "second stage of communism" is "impossible"....shit, if Marx thought it was, he would have said so categorically. After all, he was never on to "bite his tongue"&#33; <_<


Originally posted by Marx
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

Chapter 1. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

Marx, as far as I can tell, is almost arguing for an equalisation of Labour Time Vouchers; he&#39;s basically saying that in order to create equality, artificial intervention into the system is required to offset human differences. I don&#39;t mind that myself, during the time where there is some form of wage system, then keeping it as equal as possible, would certainly be preferable.

On top of that, you notice the underlying message here right? Rather than promoting a message of "most labour wins", Marx is arguing for a kind of proto each according to his ability, to each according to his needs before we are in a communist society.

Essentially, whilst the first extract I quoted argues for a form of market retention....which basically works in the same way as a capitalist market. The above quote is arguing that communist measures need to be taken right away. That is, why starting trying to fulfil the "needs" as soon as possible.

On top of that, the careful reader will have noted that the phrase "just emerged" appears once again....bascially creating the impression that this is a temporary situation. And if this wasn&#39;t enough, straight after the above quote we see this....


Originally posted by Marx
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life&#39;s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs&#33;

Chapter 1. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

Marxism is a materialistic philosophy; so why Marx, a materialist, would choose to talk about concepts that you think he considers "utopian", quite frankly baffles me.

After all, by promoting the "higher phase of communist society" as a political reality, surely you would deem Marx an idealist? I mean, as you said: Real communists don&#39;t expect the second stage of communism to ever become reality. It&#39;s merely a point, a horizon that we always move toward without ever arriving.

For the record, you aside, I&#39;ve never come across a communist who didn&#39;t think a classless stateless society was a feasible option....though I hear Bob Avakian has hinted that he thinks it is a "fantasy"&#33; :o

That makes Marx, I and the majority of the fucking communist movement not "real" commuists....what&#39;s the air like on Planet Cuckooland "Shredder"? :lol:

Basically, from your point of view, Marx is either being; (1) deliberately deceptive; or (2), an idealist....you choose, but just don&#39;t expect anyone to take you seriously.


Originally posted by Shredder
But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality.

Other than a passing mention to bourgeois right, "Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right", I see no mention of what you seem to suggesting; a massive Legal Establishment complete with a bloated bureaucracy.

In fact, Marx goes as far as to say that "administration not belonging to production [....] will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops." [Chapter 1.]

Where as you, at the very least, are suggesting that we keep the administration in order to administrate bourgeois law....perhaps your suggesting we increase the size of said administration.

Whatever your babbling about, it&#39;s not what Marx had in mind. In fact, I think your presenting a kind of intellectual dishonesty here; instead of saying this is what Marx thought and this is what I think and why I think Marx was wrong, your pasting your shabby ideas onto Marx.

It&#39;s almost as if you think we&#39;re all illiterate buffoons who will just take your word with regards Marx opinion and not bother checking it out. Well, I hate to break it to you, but this board ain&#39;t the place for hustling....perhaps you could try a Christian message board. :lol:


Originally posted by Shredder
The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.

Aside from the early post-revolutionary society being used to suppress former capitalists and their supporters, Marx does in fact spell out what development he thinks is required....


Originally posted by Marx
Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

It&#39;s brief I know, but here, Marx does offer three distinct things that he thinks will occur in a post-revolutionary society before it makes the transition to the "higher phase of communist society":

1) The diminishing of "the general costs of administration not belonging to production" and the general restriction of this administration....I don&#39;t need to discuss this any more, as I talked about it above.

2) The implementation of social-welfare programs....the creation of "schools, health services, etc."

This one, since 1875, has come into practice. The modern-capitalist world does have numerous hospitals, schools and so on; which would have possibly surprised even Marx. As would, incidentally, the eradication of child labour....which if memory serves me correctly, Marx said was impossible in Chapter 4 of the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Sometimes Marx was "on the money"....other times he left with no chips at all. <_<

So really, this proposal, is no longer relevant.

3) What we in the U.K. term the Giro; or as Marx puts it, "poor relief".

This proposal, incidentally, rubbishes your statement that the mantra "He who does not work shall not eat" was a principle that Marx incorporated into his analysis of what a post-revolutionary society would do. Rather, you&#39;re once again projecting your ideas, and Lenin&#39;s, onto Marx.

It&#39;s a kind of weird bastardisation of the fallacy Argument by Authority....your trying to make the argument, but in this case, the "Authority" doesn&#39;t agree with you&#33; :lol:

These are the three concepts Marx obviously felt warranted a mention; and the only one relating to development, 2, as I said, is no longer relevant. So based on this specific document, Marx, it seems, would consider the "high state of development" needed for the transfer to the "higher phase of communist society" to already be in place.

Really, I think this emphasises what happens when people make Marxism into a political ideology instead of treating it as a political theory. We really, in order to understand the world, need to try and figure out why Marx said X in 1875 and whether X is still relevant.

In this case, X isn&#39;t relevant....though, to be honest, I think with you, we should start with baby-steps; that is, before we can discuss whether X is relevant, you need to stop misrepresenting X for your own political purposes.


[email protected]
But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labor, of doing away with the antithesis between mental and physical labor, of transforming labor into "life&#39;s prime want"--we do not and cannot know.

I think if someone had the time and resources, they&#39;d probably be able to conclude that most present Industries could operate without the division of labour.

Wikipedia, for example, has shown that an Encyclopedia can be put together on what is, essentially, a communist-esque for of social organisation....that is, people doing what interests them as individuals.

Another factor to take into account, is that workers are a lot cleverer now than they were in either Marx or Lenin&#39;s day. And the internet, another technological advance, is accelerating this process.


Shredder
Ignorance--for it has never entered the head of any socialist to “promise” that the higher phase of the development of communism will arrive (((Almost my words exactly&#33;)))

They are "almost" your words? Well, out of interest, who&#39;s words are they?

Lucky for me, aside from my member title of course, I don&#39;t call myself a socialist; I&#39;m a communist. And guess what? Communism is what I promote and aim for though....though I&#39;ve never "promised" it.

After all, I&#39;m a single human being, so there&#39;s really little point in me making grand promises I won&#39;t be able to deliver on. Rather, I tell people that, if they want, they can create a communist society....how "ignorant" of me&#33; :lol:

[Shredder]

The entire portion under the dotted line was an abridged quotation from Lenin, directed at Khayembii Communique and his preceding comment. I should have made that clearer.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Shredder+May 12 2006, 04:01 PM--> (Shredder @ May 12 2006, 04:01 PM) The entire portion under the dotted line was an abridged quotation from Lenin, directed at Khayembii Communique and his preceding comment. I should have made that clearer. [/b]

Fucking hilarious&#33; :lol:

I didn&#39;t think you were being serious, so I checked; and it appears your quotation starts at the very end of this this section....2. The Transition from Capitalism to Communism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2)

Now there&#39;s been much talk on here recently about how good The State And Revolution is, so I was tempted to sit down and read it to see whether the hype was deserved....but based on what you quoted (I can&#39;t be bothered to read the full portion of the text from which you gained your quote), I don&#39;t see the point in reading what appears to be such a shoddy work.

I&#39;ll let Vlad off regarding the stuff I said about modern-capitalism, after all, he wasn&#39;t to know what it would do....though you have no excuse for clinging to such outdated positions. But the rest, is frankly abysmal.

Lenin is, in my opinion, being intellectually dishonest and he certainly projects his own views onto Marx....I&#39;m honestly shocked at how shit that bit was.

Though the context for this statement....


Lenin
The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.

....seems much more understandable in 1917; but it&#39;s still guff&#33; :lol:

If The State And Revolution was a "copy and paste" job, it was a fucking awful one....one that I&#39;m certainly not going to read any time soon.

[KC]

Originally posted by Redstar2000+--> (Redstar2000)
See for yourself...

[Shitty Redstar Paper]

The grotesque mis-use of historical materialism in the Leninist paradigm must be rejected by revolutionaries, of course.

Wherein we are informed that there ain&#39;t nothing on the menu but shit sandwiches for the next few centuries.

The people who say this are acting from such brazen self-interest as to be simply contemptible. [/b]

Marx refutes your fucked up version of historical materialism:


Originally posted by Marx+--> (Marx)
[Redstar2000] feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale (general path) imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic cirumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.) Let us take an example.

In several parts of Capital I allude to the fate which overtook the plebeians of ancient Rome. They were originally free peasants, each cultivating his own piece of land on his own account. In the course of Roman history they were expropriated. The same movement which divorced them from their means of production and subsistence involved the formation not only of big landed property but also of big money capital. And so one fine morning there were to be found on the one hand free men, stripped of everything except their labour power, and on the other, in order to exploit this labour, those who held all the acquired wealth in possession. What happened? The Roman proletarians became, not wage labourers but a mob of do-nothings more abject than the former "poor whites" in the southern country of the United States, and alongside of them there developed a mode of production which was not capitalist but dependent upon slavery. Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.[emphasis mine][/b]
- Marx to the Editor of Otyecestvenniye zapisky (end of 1877)

And here&#39;s a quote where Marx shows that he believes that it is possible to skip a stage of development. In this case he is talking about Russia:


Originally posted by Marx
...In order that I might be qualified to estimate the economic development in Russia to-day, I learnt Russian and then for many years studied the official publications and others bearing on this subject. I have arrived at this conclusion: If Russia continues to pursue the path she has followed since 1861, she will lose the finest chance(2) ever offered by history to a nation, in order to undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist Regime.

(2)I.e., the finest chance of escaping capitalist development.[emphasis mine]
- Marx to the Editor of Otyecestvenniye zapisky (end of 1877)

Here&#39;s a quote by Engels that&#39;s basically talking about Redstar:


[email protected]
...The materialist conception of history also has a lot of friends nowadays to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history.
-Engels to Conrad Schmidt (London, 5 August 1890)


Redstar2000

In the fucking 1870s&#33;

You presumably wish to engrave his words in stone so as to facilitate your access to that corner office on the 50th floor in the "Ministry of Eternal Transition".

PISS OFF&#33;

And you wish to do away with his future predictions which are based off of historical materialism (which you so horribly skewer). If anything, the might of international capital is more powerful and more organized than it was in Marx&#39;s time (as Britain was the most developed nation, and most of the others were still going through a process of change), so this state would have to be more authoritarian than what Marx suggested.

So you, Redstar, can piss the fuck off, and take all of your unmarxist shit with you.

[Amusing Scrotum]

So the Theory forum is going to turn into a forum for "quote wars" now? Well, okey-dokey.


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+May 12 2006, 05:24 PM--> (Khayembii Communique &#064; May 12 2006, 05:24 PM)And here&#39;s a quote where Marx shows that he believes that it is possible to skip a stage of development. In this case he is talking about Russia:


Originally posted by [email protected]
...In order that I might be qualified to estimate the economic development in Russia to-day, I learnt Russian and then for many years studied the official publications and others bearing on this subject. I have arrived at this conclusion: If Russia continues to pursue the path she has followed since 1861, she will lose the finest chance(2) ever offered by history to a nation, in order to undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist Regime.

(2)I.e., the finest chance of escaping capitalist development.[emphasis mine]
- Marx to the Editor of Otyecestvenniye zapisky (end of 1877)[/b]

And here&#39;s another famous dead communist refuting Marx....


Engels
The revolution that modern socialism strives to achieve is, briefly, the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a new organisation of society by the destruction of all class distinctions. This requires not only a proletariat to carry out this revolution, but also a bourgeoisie in whose hands the social productive forces have developed so far that they permit the final destruction of class distinctions. Among savages and semi-savages there likewise often exist no class distinctions, and every people has passed through such a state. It could not occur to us to re-establish this state, for the simple reason that class distinctions necessarily emerge from it as the social productive forces develop. Only at a certain level of development of these social productive forces, even a very high level for our modern conditions, does it become possible to raise production to such an extent that the abolition of class distinctions can constitute real progress, can be lasting without bringing about stagnation or even decline in the mode of social production. But the productive forces have reached this level of development only in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, therefore, in this respect also is just as necessary a precondition for the socialist revolution as is the proletariat itself. Hence a man who says that this revolution can be more easily carried out in a country where, although there is no proletariat, there is no bourgeoisie either, only proves that he has still to learn the ABC of socialism.

On Social Relations in Russia; Section V. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/refugee-literature/ch05.htm)

I think it&#39;s in that section, but it could be earlier, where Engels rather delicately excuses the statement by Marx you quoted....basically, he refrains from coming straight out and saying "Marx was talking shit&#33;"

Yet, that&#39;s what he probably thought. :o

But all this, is rather irrelevant. Historical Materialism is not the process of verbally repeating whatever Marx thought would happen, rather it&#39;s a paradigm to analyse human society.

And, in that respect, it doesn&#39;t really matter if one "strays" from Marx&#39;s original outline (which, as it happens, was rather stricter in his early years when compared to his later years)....rather what is important is that we use said paradigm in order to produce fruitful analyses.

Indeed, Marx, in my opinion, undervalued his work with regards materialist investigation....after all, it was only after he died that Engels started plugging the Materialist Conception of History and the "promoter" of Dialectical Materialism was one Mr. Plekhanov.

Now, in a thread a while back, I said how it would be very daft to think that these three men all had one singular and identical view of all this; because, when alls said and done, all three were clever men who had their own minds. So really, what actually matters here is the standards of your analyses and not your ability to directly copy everything Marx ever said about Materialist Philosophy.

After all, had the various Scientific disciplines taken up the same kind of approach that some Marxists take up on the issue of Historical Materialism, then we would never have moved past Newton and Darwin&#33; :o

Your theories, like mine, and for that matter redstar2000&#39;s, will fail or succeed on their own merits and not on their "closeness" to the work(s) of Marx and/or Engels.

Shit, this is a revolutionary left message board, Appeals to Authority should seem, well....out of place.

[KC]

Originally posted by AS+--> (AS)I think it&#39;s in that section, but it could be earlier, where Engels rather delicately excuses the statement by Marx you quoted....basically, he refrains from coming straight out and saying "Marx was talking shit&#33;"

Yet, that&#39;s what he probably thought.[/b]

The quote you presented was written in 1874. The quote I presented was written in 1877, after the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. Marx considered the Russo-Turkish war a "new turning point in European history". Here&#39;s the full quote:


Originally posted by Marx+--> (Marx)
This crisis [Russo-Turkish war and Near Eastern crisis] is a new turning point in European history. Russia has long been standing on the threshold of an upheaval, all the elements of it are prepared--I have studied conditions there from the original Russian sources, unofficial and official (the latter only available to a few people but got for me through friends in Petersburg). The gallant Turks have hastened the explosion by years with the thrashing they have inflicted, not only upon the Russian army and Russian finances, but in a highly personal and individual manner on the dynasty commanding the army (the Tsar, the heir to the throne and six other Romanovs). The upheaval will begin secundum artem [according to the rules of the art] with some playing at constitutionalism and then there will be a fine row. If Mother Nature is not particularly unfavourable towards us we shall still live to see the fun&#33; The stupid nonsense which the Russian students are perpetrating is only a symptom, worthless in itself. But it is a symptom. All sections of Russian society are in complete disintegration economically, morally and intellectually.

This time the revolution will begin in the East, hitherto the unbroken bulwark and reserve army of counter-revolution.[/b]
-Marx to Frierich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken (27 September 1877)

This was written approximately two months before the quote I provided above, and corroborates my case.


[email protected]

But all this, is rather irrelevant. Historical Materialism is not the process of verbally repeating whatever Marx thought would happen, rather it&#39;s a paradigm to analyse human society.

And, in that respect, it doesn&#39;t really matter if one "strays" from Marx&#39;s original outline (which, as it happens, was rather stricter in his early years when compared to his later years)....rather what is important is that we use said paradigm in order to produce fruitful analyses.


That&#39;s my whole point. What better way to say this than to show that Marx, the creator of the theory himself, even took this stance?


AS
what actually matters here is the standards of your analyses and not your ability to directly copy everything Marx ever said about Materialist Philosophy.

This was never what I was saying. What I was saying was that historical materialism can&#39;t be used as a historico-philosophical theory. Marx&#39;s quote fit perfectly, so I figured I&#39;d throw it in, as well as proving his flexibility with historical materialism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marx+--> (Marx)Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results.[/b]

Indeed. One can only wonder why Marx neglected to mention the complete absence of the technology required for both a modern bourgeoisie and a modern proletariat.

It&#39;s fundamental to his whole approach.

The Romans did not have the steam engine.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I have arrived at this conclusion: If Russia continues to pursue the path she has followed since 1861, she will lose the finest chance(2) ever offered by history to a nation, in order to undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist Regime.

(2)i.e., the finest chance of escaping capitalist development.

Yeah, he missed this one badly. So badly, in fact, that I don&#39;t think he really thought this at all. I think he was flattering one of his Russian "fans". Within only a few years, he was speaking of a Russian "1789"...a bourgeois revolution.

Russia had no choice but to "continue the path it had been following". No other conclusion could possibly be consistent with the historical materialist paradigm.


Khayembii Communique
If anything, the might of international capital is more powerful and more organized than it was in Marx&#39;s time (as Britain was the most developed nation, and most of the others were still going through a process of change), so this state would have to be more authoritarian than what Marx suggested.

So you, Redstar, can piss the fuck off, and take all of your unmarxist shit with you.

You thereby expose your own sleazy ambitions, you despicable careerist&#33; Your frank desire to be an autocrat is unlikely to be welcomed...fortunately&#33;

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2920/despotism22id.jpg


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

[LoneRed]

Ya KC, why are you masking behind this so called marxism when in fact you just want to be an autocrat


and redstar if you think that marxism is just another paradigm, as do the vulgar marxists, then why be here? Marxism and Marxists claim to see things that others dont see. I guess you dont...




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

[KC]

Russia had no choice but to "continue the path it had been following". No other conclusion could possibly be consistent with the historical materialist paradigm.

Well, you&#39;re right, according to your (mis)use of historical materialism.


You thereby expose your own sleazy ambitions, you despicable careerist&#33; Your frank desire to be an autocrat is unlikely to be welcomed...fortunately&#33;

Authoritarianism is ev1l&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Seriously, I don&#39;t see how me saying the state has to be more authoritarian now than before makes me into a "Leninist", a "careerist", an "autocrat" or even wrong.

Moreover, that image didn&#39;t really make much sense.

[LoneRed]

Dont take it to heart KC, anarchists love to play the authority card when they have nothing left to say.

-The proletarian state must be More centralized than the current bourgeoisie as to avoid the bourgeoisie class from gaining any power, and 2. to organize the methods of production. It seems that you&#39;re taking the classic capitalist argument that centralization-bad, when in reality it would in real terms be much less centralized than society is now, Now-Centralization in the hands of the few, socialism-centralization in the hands of the entire Working class. or to look at it another way, Its the Macrolevel of analysis, we havent even got into how the micro level of society will look under socialism

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:18 PM
And redstar if you think that marxism is just another paradigm, as do the vulgar marxists, then why be here? Marxism and Marxists claim to see things that others don&#39;t see. I guess you don&#39;t...
Marxism is not "just another" paradigm...it&#39;s the best one to come along so far.

I am, of course, a "vulgar Marxist" -- that&#39;s code for meaning a real one among those who grotesquely mis-use Marx&#39;s ideas as a cover for their own "vulgar" ambitions.

As you&#39;ve seen, both Shredder and Khayembii Communique "disdain to conceal their views and aims"...an authoritarian despotism that will last forver&#33;

It&#39;s what they mean by the "lower stage" of communism.

They do indeed claim to "see things that others don&#39;t see"...namely, the so-called "historical necessity" of "socialist" autocracy&#33;

The reason that I so vehemently dispute their "vision" is that it totally sucks&#33;

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

[KC]

As you&#39;ve seen, both Shredder and Khayembii Communique "disdain to conceal their views and aims"...an authoritarian despotism that will last forver&#33;

1. I&#39;m not concealing anything.
2. I advocate an authoritarian despotism of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. If it takes thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, then so be it&#33; :angry: There is no reason for us (the proletariat) to give up, and we won&#39;t until we achieve our goal.

If you think I advocate despotism of any other type (my bet is that you&#39;ll say party despotism...so predictable) then I invite you to look through my two thousand posts and prove that I advocate this.




It&#39;s what they mean by the "lower stage" of communism.

The lower stage of communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. If you don&#39;t believe in this then you&#39;re not only not a marxist, but a complete idiot, as the proletariat needs control of society in order to move it towards communism.



The reason that I so vehemently dispute their "vision" is that it totally sucks&#33;


Yes, the proletarian fight for a society free of exploitation "totally sucks". Your true colors begin to show.

[Leo]

I advocate an authoritarian despotism of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. If it takes thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, then so be it&#33;

Of course here we must ask the question &#39;who will be the bourgeoise after the revolution&#39; and the answer is not capitalists&#33; Seriously, members of the proletariat should not kill members of the bourgeois. If they attack as first, we will defend ourselves, yes, but we are trying to get what we deserve. After the revolution there will be a treatment against the bourgeois which can be interpreted as a dictatorship, but not in the way you understand it&#33; Capitalists can&#39;t survive without workers giving to them, and after the revolution, no worker is going to give anything to capitalists. Marx is a very compassionate man, he is deeply sorry about this process, so that he calls it a dictatorship, but not in the sense most of the people think. Marx calls it the &#39;lower&#39; stage, because a group of human beings are forced to join the proletariat or die. Capitalists will either join the proletariat or just simply die because they are unable to provide basic life sources. This dictatorship of the proletariat will end because the capitalists will cease to exist after a generation and this process of &#39;not&#39; giving anything to former capitalists who refuse to join the proletariat is totally independent from the Communist practice.

[KC]

Of course here we must ask the question &#39;who will be the bourgeoise after the revolution&#39; and the answer is not capitalists&#33; Seriously, members of the proletariat should not kill members of the bourgeois. If they attack as first, we will defend ourselves, yes, but we are trying to get what we deserve. After the revolution there will be a treatment against the bourgeois which can be interpreted as a dictatorship, but not in the way you understand it&#33; Capitalists can&#39;t survive without workers giving to them, and after the revolution, no worker is going to give anything to capitalists. Marx is a very compassionate man, he is deeply sorry about this process, so that he calls it a dictatorship, but not in the sense most of the people think. Marx calls it the &#39;lower&#39; stage, because a group of human beings are forced to join the proletariat or die. Capitalists will either join the proletariat or just simply die because they are unable to provide basic life sources. This dictatorship of the proletariat will end because the capitalists will cease to exist after a generation and this process of &#39;not&#39; giving anything to former capitalists who refuse to join the proletariat is totally independent from the Communist practice.

I suggest that you see this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49080&st=300) thread, and particularly this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49080&view=findpost&p=1292069201) post, and if you want to comment on this then go post in that thread.

[LoneRed]

Seriously, members of the proletariat should not kill members of the bourgeois.

We can all see where you stand now, and its on the other side with the anti-dialectical, Vulgar Marxists. funny how we can still call it "Marxist"


It would be so much easier if you,)RS2k included, stopped hiding behind the veil of marxism and just say what you really are. From redstars obvious disdain for communism or for our "vision", it is easy to see where you stand, its a damn shame so many young comrades or future comrades, actually listen to your rantings


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

[Leo]

QUOTE (anomaly @ May 10 2006, 11:31 PM)
Again, separated from the material basis for their class, any counterrevolutionary ex-bourgeoisie would simply be criminals. We do not need a state to combat criminals.

That&#39;s the catch. They are not separated from the material basis for their class. As long as the world capitalist market exists, their material basis continues to exist -- especially when talking about the bourgeoisie in imperialist states.

But what &#39;world capitalist market&#39;, the material basis of the bourgeois class can&#39;t exist, after the international revolution anyways. Are you against world revolution too? Are you going to defend the ridiculous &#39;socialism in one country&#39; thesis now?


QUOTE
Seriously, members of the proletariat should not kill members of the bourgeois.

We can all see where you stand now, and its on the other side with the anti-dialectical, Vulgar Marxists. funny how we can still call it "Marxist"

Are you that bloodthirsty my friend? Do you really think we should go and hunt few arrogant ex-capitalists trying to survive as outcasts in the wilderness? Because as you just called me names and did not talk about my argument, I take it that you accept it (or didn&#39;t read it thoroughly or didn&#39;t understand it). I stand where the workers stand. There is no other side; the historical reality is the proletariat and their conditions. Get used to different opinions because the proletariat is a big lot.


It would be so much easier if you,)RS2k included, stopped hiding behind the veil of marxism and just say what you really are. From redstars obvious disdain for communism or for our "vision", it is easy to see where you stand, its a damn shame so many young comrades or future comrades, actually listen to your rantings

I don&#39;t hide behind anything. I am among the workers, this is where I want to be, where I stand, and where I will die. You, as far as I take, want to be above the workers. But don&#39;t worry my friend, my &#39;vision&#39; of communism, no matter what it is, is as unimportant as your vision of communism. Workers vision of communism is what matters. The whole point of the movement is to create a classless, communist society but it is not me or the group of &#39;anti-dialectical, Vulgar Marxists&#39; you put me in who will build this society, neither is it you and your group of so-called revolutionary &#39;wanna be&#39; leaders who separate themselves, and put themselves above the workers. None of us are that important, it is the workers who will create the communist society and they, who are going to create this classless communist society won&#39;t accept your leadership. You are not important; you are not selected by the history to lead the workers. Revolutionary intellectuals have their own historical part, which is uniting the workers. The first one to play this part is Marx himself, screaming "Workers of the world; UNITE&#33;" If you think proletariat needs leadership depending on Marxist &#39;leaders&#39;, feel free to say so but don&#39;t call yourself a Marxist, because you are not. If you label others and create antagonisms within the workers, you are not a communist or a revolutionary anymore. Nevertheless, if you want to unite the workers, and join them, crush the capitalist system and build the communist society among them, then you are my comrade.

[LoneRed]

Ill answer your post tomorrow.

from your post it seems that there has been a lack of understanding of what im saying.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LoneRed
From redstar&#39;s obvious disdain for communism or for our "vision", it is easy to see where you stand, it&#39;s a damn shame so many young comrades or future comrades, actually listen to your rantings.

I daresay you find it so...the more people who listen to my "rantings", the worse your chances are of grabbing that corner office on the 50th floor. :lol:

Did you read what Shredder wrote? "The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist..." Did you read what Khayembii Communique just wrote? "If it takes thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, then so be it&#33;"

That&#39;s the "vision" you have to offer us? :o

It&#39;s funny how desperately you guys all cling to the "robes" of Marxism...as if his reputation will conceal your ambitions.

What would be even funnier is if you were to try that with him while he was still alive. The expressions on your faces when he emptied the contents of his chamberpot on your heads would be photoshopped all over the internet. :lol:

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

[KC]

Once again an attempt on Redstar&#39;s part to distort my ideas.



Did you read what Shredder wrote? "The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist..." Did you read what Khayembii Communique just wrote? "If it takes thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, then so be it&#33;"

That&#39;s the "vision" you have to offer us?

Do you propose that the proletariat just gives up after trying for a certain period of time? That they should just stop fighting for their emancipation and go back to being exploited? I really didn&#39;t think you did, but from this quote it seems rather obvious that you think so. My stance, and the actual meaning of that quote, is that no matter how long this struggle takes, the proletariat should never give up.

Yet you somehow twist this into a "party despotism" situation that you love ranting about, without 1.) Even knowing my stance on the dictatorship of the proletariat and 2.) Using the quote in its proper meaning. This is a straw man. I once again invite you to attempt to prove that I believe in "party despotism". If you can&#39;t, or choose not to, then stop trying to twist my words to make it sound like I believe it to be&#33;

God, you&#39;re fucking awful at debating.



It&#39;s funny how desperately you guys all cling to the "robes" of Marxism...as if his reputation will conceal your ambitions.

Once again, prove that I believe in "party despotism" or have these so-called "ambitions". If not then stop ad homineming.



What would be even funnier is if you were to try that with him while he was still alive. The expressions on your faces when he emptied the contents of his chamberpot on your heads would be photoshopped all over the internet.

Sorry, but it was Marx himself that advocated the dictatorship of the proletariat. By rejecting this idea, it is you that he would fuck up, and not me.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)The quote you presented was written in 1874. The quote I presented was written in 1877, after the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. Marx considered the Russo-Turkish war a "new turning point in European history".[/b]

My mistake, I should have read the date at the top and then pointed you in the direction of Afterword (1984) (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/01/russia.htm) by Engels.

It&#39;s in that piece which he deals with the quotes from Marx and says "When the old tsarist despotism continued unchanged after the defeats of the Crimean War and the suicide of Tsar Nicholas, only one road was open: the swiftest transition possible to capitalist industry." And "thus hastening the victory of the modern industrial proletariat, without which present-day Russia can never achieve a socialist transformation, whether proceeding from the commune or from capitalism."

Engels, as I said, to some extent saw things differently and in my opinion, after Marx died, Engels really took on the mantle and became an important theorist in his own right.

This had both it&#39;s advantages and its disadvantages....I mean, Engels inability to see a rotten egg in German Social Democracy is certainly a negative. After all, in my opinion, the Critique of the Gotha Programme, as I said earlier, is a kind of early attack on later reformism; and had Marx lived longer, I think he would have formulated some pretty strong attacks on German Social Democracy.

Where as Engels, who was likely preoccupied with finishing Capital, didn&#39;t manage to identify the faults in German Social Democracy....which ultimately led to, in the eyes of Lenin and co., Kautsky being considered "as the genuine continuator of the cause of Marx and Engels." (L. Trotsky, 1938.)

I mean, of the early 20th century Marxists, James Connolly is really the only "famous" Marxist from that period, that I know of, who didn&#39;t contract "Kautsky&#39;s disease"....though of course, he did contract "going to Catholic Mass disease". :o


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)That&#39;s my whole point. What better way to say this than to show that Marx, the creator of the theory himself, even took this stance?[/b]

Well, because it really matters little what Marx said on redstar&#39;s perceived "historico-philosophic theory"....redstar&#39;s theories, will fail or succeed on their ability to usefully analyse human society.

If you have a problem with redstar&#39;s position on X, then the way to argue against that is to argue against it....not just quote Marx saying I don&#39;t like X. After all, during the smoking debates, I could have just said Marx smoked and therefore, from a communist point of view smoking is great. However, that&#39;s not a serious line of argumentation.

If you wish to argue against redstar&#39;s "historico-philosophic theory", then, as I said, you need to argue against that; quoting what Marx said over a century ago is really useless, Especially as Marx&#39;s "critique" of it takes the form of a letter and isn&#39;t really a "critique" in the strictest sense of the word.

And on top of all that, we currently have over a hundred years more of historical evidence on which to base our opinions on. The events of the last century, the expansion of knowledge of previous centuries and so on, means that Marx&#39;s position(s) in 1877, may well have been invalidated by new historical evidence. Like, for instance, his materialist analysis on the possibility of an end to child labour in the modern-capitalist countries.

I mean, from a conversation in Live Chat, I think you take the position presented in that book that&#39;s exceedingly expensive ( <_< ) that class struggle and not technological advances were the biggest factor in the rise of bourgeois society.

I could, if I so desired, pull out a quote from old fart 1 or 2 when they mention the importance of the steam engine to modern-capitalism....but I think it would be more fruitful to discuss your positions outside the shadow of "Marx&#39;s ghost".

Like, for instance, it&#39;s far better for Marx to discuss modern anarchism from a viewpoint different from the one Marx and Engels had during the conflicts with the Slavic anti-Semite....times, after all, change.


Khayembii [email protected]
This was never what I was saying. What I was saying was that historical materialism can&#39;t be used as a historico-philosophical theory. Marx&#39;s quote fit perfectly, so I figured I&#39;d throw it in, as well as proving his flexibility with historical materialism.

Well Marx didn&#39;t even think he created an historical theory, never mind a "historico-philosophical theory". Unlike during other times in his life, he was rather modest about his achievements here....not like when he was plugging Capital, which he was saying was "groundbreaking" before he&#39;d even written anything substantial. :lol:

But really, you didn&#39;t point out how redstar2000&#39;s theories were wrong, you just pointed out that Marx may have disliked them....which strikes me as an exercise in intellectual masturbation.


LoneRed
We can all see where you stand now, and its on the other side with the anti-dialectical, Vulgar Marxists.

That&#39;s a new one, "anti-dialectical, Vulgar Marxists" are now attributed the position of being "pacifists"? Not quite. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49650&view=findpost&p=1292065121)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 13 2006, 10:57 AM
I mean, of the early 20th century Marxists, James Connolly is really the only "famous" Marxist from that period, that I know of, who didn&#39;t contract "Kautsky&#39;s disease"....though of course, he did contract "going to Catholic Mass disease". :o
Connolly arrived at his theories in America and Ireland and was isolated from the German SD scene that dominated Marxist though at the time. An accident of history perhaps.

Ironically enough of course this same reformist disease that so infected Marxism until 1915 was a result of a too strict interpretation of historical materialism. The idea that capitalism must be established before socialism led many self-proclaimed Marxists to actively fight for and support the liberal state.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Funnily enough Om, I got that information on Connolly from you....so I suppose I should have cited you. <_<


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Ironically enough of course this same reformist disease that so infected Marxism until 1915 was a result of a too strict interpretation of historical materialism.[/b]

Maybe in Russia with regards Plekhanov and the Mensheviks&#39;, but I&#39;ve never heard Kautsky describe as a "stagist" or "vulgar" or whatever....though admittedly, I&#39;m unaware of what claptrap he presented in order to justify his support of WWII; because, if memory serves me correctly, it was only later on that he became a "pacifist".


ComradeOm
The idea that capitalism must be established before socialism led many self-proclaimed Marxists to actively fight for and support the liberal state.

And, unfortunately, even the ones who were revolutionaries and got into power constructed a capitalist regime and became bourgeois politicians....pretty good ones though, USSR & sons had a reputation for producing skilled Politicians/Democrats.

In a way, it would probably be better had Marxism remained isolated and marginalised from 1890 to 1925....fricking Engels and his skills of promotion. <_<

There&#39;s a thought, Engels was the first PR guru&#33; :lol:

[Shredder]

Did you read what Shredder wrote? "The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist..." Did you read what Khayembii Communique just wrote? "If it takes thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, then so be it&#33;"

That&#39;s the "vision" you have to offer us?

This "vision" is the one that is consistent with historical materialism. I am not surprised it confuses you, since what you usually parade around as historical materialism is catostrophic idealist augury.

Trying to skip to a stage without the ability to advance the means of production to a corresponding stage results in a contradiction between the means of production and the social relations of production.

Attempting to skip, therefore, to the second phase of communism, without the proper requisites, would result in an unstable system that could not produce efficiently or continue to advance. What are the prerequisites for this world where the rule is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Historical materialism, because it is materialist, should make that quite obvious. Marx put it most succinctly, in a quote which was ironically used against me:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life&#39;s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs&#33;"

This understandably rare discussion from Marx on the second phase of communist society shows you in a materialist fashion what type of distant fantasy it truly is. The second phase, the phase when "from/to each according to etc.", is possible only when supply & demand have been stood on their head so that demand cannot keep up with supply. Until then, "bourgeois right", i.e., the need for a correspondence between work given and value taken, is a historical, material neccessity. This is the ABC of materialism.

Nor can we just sit back and wait for capitalism to reach that point on its own. Capitalism has its own contradictions that increase with each advancement. Capitalism finds itself preferring to destroy food to control supply in the US, meanwhile the people who created that food starve in south america. That is why we need to advance now, to the first stage of communism. Bringing production under one plan allows for the developement of the third world to be seen as a benefit to all rather than a dangerous risk. Once we have created a world where all people produce using the most advanced, efficient means of production, only then do we finally begin to advance toward the horizon, where our means of production are so efficient and automated that the division of labor is abolished and all work is voluntary.

[LoneRed]

I am not "bloodthirsty" but you expect us just to let them off the hook? how are the proletariat supposed to attain control with the bourgeoisie still around. I believe this the remnants of the bourgeoisie that still actively fight to keep their valueless possessions, have gotta go. Some will assimilate but Id be always wary of their contempt for communism. I am not bloodthirsty but am not so willing to let those that have enslaved the proletariat for centuries "off the hook"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)This "vision" is the one that is consistent with historical materialism.[/b]

No, it&#39;s consistent only with your desire to plant your ass on a despot&#39;s plush throne.

Like a number of people here, your real objection to capitalism is that you weren&#39;t born into the ruling class...a historical oversight that you intend to rectify at the first opportunity.

When you speak glowingly of "unjust differences in wealth", it&#39;s obvious which side of that equation you intend to be on&#33;

When you argue that real communism is "impossible", it&#39;s equally obvious what you really have in mind...capitalism (temporarily) without capitalists.

Khayembii Communique and LoneRed obviously sympathize.


Marx
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life&#39;s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs&#33;

That is what communism is...and not the despotic crap that you and your co-thinkers want to inflict on us "for our own good".

A revolution that does not proceed at once to the construction of a real communist society is a revolution that&#39;s not worth making&#33; There is no reason whatsoever to believe that you guys would make "better despots" than the ones we have now&#33;

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)This "vision" is the one that is consistent with historical materialism.[/b]

Really? So far, in support of your views, you&#39;ve posted an exert from Lenin written in 1917 which I would imagine talks about the possibility of transition from the first into the second stage of communism in feudal Russia.

And even if Lenin had chosen to quote Marx in context and not project his own views onto Marx, we&#39;d still have to remember that Marx&#39;s analyses was based on 19th century England&#33;

Are you unaware of the technological advances over the last century? It seems to me that you are.

You say: Once we have created a world where all people produce using the most advanced, efficient means of production, only then do we finally begin to advance toward the horizon, where our means of production are so efficient and automated that the division of labor is abolished and all work is voluntary.

Well, lets discuss this a little....and for this discussion, the occupation that I&#39;m going to discuss is plumbing.

Now, not that long ago, the main form of pipework used was lead....this meant that in order to lay pipes, you had to know how to lead burn and this, believe me, is not an easy thing to do. Because of this, it was really a labour intensive practice to lay pipes and due to the primitiveness of the technology involved, providing everybody with running water would be extremely difficult....almost impossible.

In 2006, pipework is either plastic push-fit or copper....and both methods are pretty easy to install and can certainly be done on a "voluntary" basis by people who just enjoy doing that.

Installing a water system, in todays world, is nowhere near as hard as it was in 1875; and therefore, the current levels of technology in plumbing probably are sufficient for that work to be done on a voluntary basis.

Shit, with push-fit pipework, plumbing pipework is so easy to install that only really an incompetent dipshit would fail to even grasp the basics. So really, in this specific area, the means of production are efficient enough.

Likewise, did you know that not so long ago people drilled holes by hand? :o

Now, of course, we have electric drills and only a complete tit struggles to figure out how to use a drill....and really, the electric drill is yet another advance which makes a society based on voluntary labour feasible.

I could, if I could be arsed, talk about the millions of other advances that have been made which save labour, but I hope you get the picture from my examples. Because really, technological advances have made it possible for "lay-men" to turn their hands to most things....where as in the past, years of training would be required.

And, of course, with every decade that passes, further advances get made. For instance, do you know that as of recently, virtually self-sufficient buildings that require low (or no) maintenance have become cost efficient?

It&#39;s 2006 "Shredder"....so take your head out if feudal Russia.


Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)This understandably rare discussion from Marx on the second phase of communist society shows you in a materialist fashion what type of distant fantasy it truly is.[/b]

Your twp to the bone you. I actually commented in a previous post in this thread on what type of development Marx himself mentioned would be needed to advance to the second phase of communist society. Read....


Me; May 12 [email protected] 12:58 PM

Marx
Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

It&#39;s brief I know, but here, Marx does offer three distinct things that he thinks will occur in a post-revolutionary society before it makes the transition to the "higher phase of communist society":

1) The diminishing of "the general costs of administration not belonging to production" and the general restriction of this administration....I don&#39;t need to discuss this any more, as I talked about it above.

2) The implementation of social-welfare programs....the creation of "schools, health services, etc."

This one, since 1875, has come into practice. The modern-capitalist world does have numerous hospitals, schools and so on; which would have possibly surprised even Marx. As would, incidentally, the eradication of child labour....which if memory serves me correctly, Marx said was impossible in Chapter 4 of the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Sometimes Marx was "on the money"....other times he left with no chips at all. <_<

So really, this proposal, is no longer relevant.

3) What we in the U.K. term the Giro; or as Marx puts it, "poor relief".

This proposal, incidentally, rubbishes your statement that the mantra "He who does not work shall not eat" was a principle that Marx incorporated into his analysis of what a post-revolutionary society would do. Rather, you&#39;re once again projecting your ideas, and Lenin&#39;s, onto Marx.

It&#39;s a kind of weird bastardisation of the fallacy Argument by Authority....your trying to make the argument, but in this case, the "Authority" doesn&#39;t agree with you&#33; :lol:

These are the three concepts Marx obviously felt warranted a mention; and the only one relating to development, 2, as I said, is no longer relevant. So based on this specific document, Marx, it seems, would consider the "high state of development" needed for the transfer to the "higher phase of communist society" to already be in place.

Really, I think this emphasises what happens when people make Marxism into a political ideology instead of treating it as a political theory. We really, in order to understand the world, need to try and figure out why Marx said X in 1875 and whether X is still relevant.

In this case, X isn&#39;t relevant....though, to be honest, I think with you, we should start with baby-steps; that is, before we can discuss whether X is relevant, you need to stop misrepresenting X for your own political purposes.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292069349 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49552&view=findpost&p=1292069349)

You see, where as you use the word "development" in some abstract sense, Marx used it in the sense that it actually meant real world things. He thought, as he outlined above, that the first stage of communism would require social-welfare schemes to build hospitals, schools, etc.

Well, in the modern-capitalist world, that&#39;s been done....so the development that we need to do in the first phase of communist society outlined by Marx, no longer needs to be done.

Marx&#39;s view of the development that needed to be done in the first phase of communist society, was probably something like supplying everyone with running water, gas and so on....where as your seems to be based on something out of a Sci-Fi film&#33; :lol:

[KC]

When you argue that real communism is "impossible", it&#39;s equally obvious what you really have in mind...capitalism (temporarily) without capitalists.

Khayembii Communique and LoneRed obviously sympathize.

Again, prove it or shut the fuck up.

[LoneRed]

your real objection to capitalism is that you weren&#39;t born into the ruling class...a

WTF??, this is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing Ive heard from Redstar, well then again... look at his site.

[Armed_Philosopher]

I strongly agree with Redstar.

[KC]

I strongly agree with Redstar.

About what?

[LoneRed]

you would... anarchists stick together like peanut butter and jelly

[Leo]

Attempting to skip, therefore, to the second phase of communism, without the proper requisites, would result in an unstable system that could not produce efficiently or continue to advance. What are the prerequisites for this world where the rule is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

There, we see the &#39;hidden hand&#39; of dialectics at its worst&#33; The defeatist logic you use, and call historical materialism, is actually pure dialectics. Capitalism is thesis, Communism is antithesis, and you think the only &#39;realistic&#39; sollution would be creating &#39;socialism&#39; in theory as a synthesis, and with each new &#39;antithesis&#39; it is supposed to move towards &#39;communism&#39;, but it will never get there, because dialectics doesn&#39;t work on material basis. Instead of destroying capitalism, you will kill capitalists and over time capitalism will re-create real capitalists because while trying to make synthesis of communism and capitalism and therefore you are letting capitalsim live. This is idea is (sigh) crap, just like the rest of dialectics applied on reality. Capitalism or Communism are not ideas, they are existing or potential realities. According to &#39;Historical Materialism&#39;, there are no &#39;visible&#39; phases, but depending on the process, one can call something &#39;first phase&#39; or &#39;second phase&#39; are just for making it easy to understand like calling a time period &#39;middle ages&#39; and the next time period &#39;modern ages&#39;, but the first day of &#39;modern&#39; ages is not really different from &#39;middle&#39; ages.
If you want to build communism, then you will start building communism in reality. Otherwise you won&#39;t have anything to do with communism.

On Marx and Dialectics...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1292070015 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49913&st=0&#entry1292070015)


I am not "bloodthirsty" but you expect us just to let them off the hook? how are the proletariat supposed to attain control with the bourgeoisie still around. I believe this the remnants of the bourgeoisie that still actively fight to keep their valueless possessions, have gotta go. Some will assimilate but Id be always wary of their contempt for communism. I am not bloodthirsty but am not so willing to let those that have enslaved the proletariat for centuries "off the hook"

First of all, they won&#39;t be either bourgeoise nor around after the worldwide communist revolution. They will be outcasts. They won&#39;t have any possessions, they won&#39;t have any power to fight for their old possessions. We will take everything they claim to own. If they try to fight back, working class will easily take care of that. I am not a pacifist, but the workers can&#39;t be the first side that starts taking lives. Only after we are attacked, we can attack because we are higher then capitalists. And we can only attack when it&#39;s absolutely necassary, because every drop of blood is valuable.
Those who have enslaved the proletariat, the capitalist class, collectively, and all capitalist institutions will vanish. Individuals who were capitalists can never pay for what they participated, therefore they should not be punished. Workers will take their revenge from the system. It is the system that will pay. As for ex-capitalists if they did not try to harm the workers they will even be allowed to join the working class.


you would... anarchists stick together like peanut butter and jelly

This is the most counter-revolutionary thing one can say. The more antagonisms and divisions grow within the working class, the worse... You are helping the capitalists by labelling and insultung, not the workers...

[Armed_Philosopher]

"Capitalism is thesis, Communism is antithesis, and you think the only &#39;realistic&#39; sollution would be creating &#39;socialism&#39; in theory as a synthesis, and with each new &#39;antithesis&#39; it is supposed to move towards &#39;communism&#39;, but it will never get there"

It would never happen.

Only the Spanish Anarchists have attained a large scale stateless society. Authoritarians have never even come close.

It does not take centuries of tyrany and oppression to bring about stateless socialism. It can happen pretty fast once people figure out they need to adapt to the pressent moment for their survival and mutual interest.

The idea that we need to wait hundreds or thousands of years is absurd. You act like you are changing our very genetic makeup, when you are only changing the way we treat property, hierarchy, organization, and the means of production.

Its pretty straightforward, and we dont need a dictatorship to give us freedom.

[Armed_Philosopher]

"First of all, they won&#39;t be either bourgeoise nor around after the worldwide communist revolution. They will be outcasts. They won&#39;t have any possessions, they won&#39;t have any power to fight for their old possessions. We will take everything they claim to own. If they try to fight back, working class will easily take care of that. I am not a pacifist, but the workers can&#39;t be the first side that starts taking lives. Only after we are attacked, we can attack because we are higher then capitalists. And we can only attack when it&#39;s absolutely necassary, because every drop of blood is valuable.
Those who have enslaved the proletariat, the capitalist class, collectively, and all capitalist institutions will vanish. Individuals who were capitalists can never pay for what they participated, therefore they should not be punished. Workers will take their revenge from the system. It is the system that will pay. As for ex-capitalists if they did not try to harm the workers they will even be allowed to join the working class."


Well spoken. This is in line with Malatestas view on non-violence and support of self defense.

"Anarchists are opposed to violence; everybody knows that. The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations…" but also "It is abundantly clear that violence is needed to resist the violence of the adversary, and we must advocate and prepare it, if we do not wish the present situation of slavery in disguise, in which most of humanity finds itself, to continue and worsen. But violence contains within itself the danger of transforming the revolution into a brutal struggle without the light of an ideal and without possibilities of a beneficial outcome; and for this reason one must stress the moral aims of the movement, and the need, and the duty, to contain violence within the limits of strict necessity."-Erico Malatesta.

[Leo]

"Capitalism is thesis, Communism is antithesis, and you think the only &#39;realistic&#39; sollution would be creating &#39;socialism&#39; in theory as a synthesis, and with each new &#39;antithesis&#39; it is supposed to move towards &#39;communism&#39;, but it will never get there"

It would never happen.

Only the Spanish Anarchists have attained a large scale stateless society. Authoritarians have never even come close.

It does not take centuries of tyrany and oppression to bring about stateless socialism. It can happen pretty fast once people figure out they need to adapt to the pressent moment for their survival and mutual interest.

The idea that we need to wait hundreds or thousands of years is absurd. You act like you are changing our very genetic makeup, when you are only changing the way we treat property, hierarchy, organization, and the means of production.

Its pretty straightforward, and we dont need a dictatorship to give us freedom.

Indeed. As I have said, secret hand of dialectics at its worst&#33; Not only Spanish Anarchists, but also Ukrainian peasants acted (unconsciously) in the way Marx thought. Truely ironic... We must work for building the society we want. Leadership of an elite group will never give us what we want (and it is what we don&#39;t want&#33;), quite the contrary, it will re-create the capitalist class.

[LoneRed]

so the leadership of the revolution will create people that take the surplus labor of the laborer and turn it into capital? highly doubtful

[Armed_Philosopher]

" so the leadership of the revolution will create people that take the surplus labor of the laborer and turn it into capital? highly doubtful"


It happened in Russia and China.

[LoneRed]

so you are telling me that it happened right after the revolution? haha, any surplus that there was went into industrializing, and this was way after lenins time

[Armed_Philosopher]

Yes, but it eventualy fell back into State Capitalism, which is why it is never advantageous to create a rulling class of the proletariat seperate from the proletariat itself, then delay the stateless socialism for some day far off n the future.


Authoritarians use the promise of an eventual stateless society the way Al Qaida uses promises of 72 virgins if they die in devotion to the cause. There is no reason to think that we could ever collect on such a promise in our lifetime.

Why fight for a revolution that we will never see? One that is almost guaneteed to fall back into State Capitalism under a Dictatorship. No thanks. In some ways our current oppressors are better then what we have seen in Russia or China in the maoist or Lenninist governments.

[Donnie]

what type of anarchist are you? thats what the big debates are between the communists and the anarchists.
Why do so many think that anarchists reject a transition between capitalism and communism?

Anarchists believe in a highly organised transition between capitalism and communism, this is known as Anarcho-collectivism.
Unfortunately, because of the revolution food and clothing are going to be in short supply because of us workers needing to defend the revolution. We believe, well certainly Anarchist Communists believe that a transition known as Anarcho-collectivism will be needed and the theory &#39;each according to your ability, to each according to your deed&#39; will need to be advocated because of the revolution, however food and clothing etc will need to be organised by workers association industrially and re-housing and other such issues will need to be administrated by the collective. Some sort of voucher system should be incorporated into this transition once factory&#39;s etc are able to produce extra goods there will be no need for &#39;each according to their deed&#39; and &#39;each according to their need&#39; will be able to be incorporated and communism therefore attained.
Although I would like to add in my personal opinion that all forms of money should be limited or abolished during the transition, however area&#39;s during the transition that need some form of monetary exchange should be established.

[Armed_Philosopher]

I dont realy think that money is nessisary, even during trasnition.

Perhaps the bartering of real goods makes more sense then the creation of arbitrary currency. Creating a currency leads to classism. Who prints the money? Who decides its value? More importantly who does not print or control the ciruclation of money.

Ive heard about "credit" systems, and that seems reasonable enough.

Such systems should be used only as needed, and abolished when they no longer serve their purpose.

[Donnie]

Ive heard about "credit" systems, and that seems reasonable enough.
Sorry, I wasn&#39;t clear on my post enough, by the introduction of a monetary system what I should have said was LTV or some similar forms.

[Leo]

so the leadership of the revolution will create people that take the surplus labor of the laborer and turn it into capital? highly doubtful


so you are telling me that it happened right after the revolution? haha, any surplus that there was went into industrializing, and this was way after lenins time

Leadership is nothing. The proletariat is everything. In Russia and China, the property was not private anymore, but it was not public either&#33;

It doesn&#39;t matter whose time it is. Even if Lenin lived a hundred years, capitalist class would be restored in Russia and capitalism itself had never been actually abolished. It doesn&#39;t matter whose in charge, material and historical conditions determine what happens.


Authoritarians use the promise of an eventual stateless society the way Al Qaida uses promises of 72 virgins if they die in devotion to the cause. There is no reason to think that we could ever collect on such a promise in our lifetime.

Why fight for a revolution that we will never see? One that is almost guaneteed to fall back into State Capitalism under a Dictatorship. No thanks. In some ways our current oppressors are better then what we have seen in Russia or China in the maoist or Lenninist governments.

As I said, the leaders are not that important. Bolshevik leaders, especially Lenin acted in his best intentions, but he couldn&#39;t have done anything with the vision he had which wasn&#39;t sufficent for an agricultural country. He did not use the ideals to obtain a dictatorship. He was trying to reach the ideals, and his way was wrong.

On what to do in agricultural countries:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49996

And no, I think capitalists would do much worse in places like Russia and China then Leninists and Maoists.


Unfortunately, because of the revolution food and clothing are going to be in short supply because of us workers needing to defend the revolution.

Hopefully after the revolution is done, there will be no need to defend it for a long period of time.


I dont realy think that money is nessisary, even during trasnition.

Most definetly. To move towards communism, old ways of capitalism should be abolished. Money is the center of the artificial balance of capitalism. After the money is abolished, the artificial will be replaced with natural. The system of sharing will regulate itself. There will of course be some extent of waiting lines, and people in work collectives will be expected to do their best, but money is not necassary in any way.

[LoneRed]

but if you think about it, if there wasnt some kind of leader, intellectual or military or otherwise, we wouldnt have a movement.

[Armed_Philosopher]

I like to make a very clear distinction between leaders and rullers.

Leaders lead by example. They are the visionaries who inspire change, and teach with their actions. If they are a strategist people listen to them because they are wise and their communities respect them.

Rullers rule by oppressive force, not just against the oppressors, but against their own subjects. Rullers become another oppressive force to replace the one in power, often creating a police state even worse then the one we started with.


When and if it is nessisary to have "responsible positions" instead of rullers we should have "delegates" who are subject to instant recall and whose decisions can always be revoked by the people through direct democracy.

More then having responsible positions subject to the will of the people, Autonomy must also be respected allowing for the greatest degree of community diversity and internal organization.

Federation alliances should be the most general and inclusive, with the princible purpose of its existence being mutual defense and mutual aid.

[LoneRed]

i dont know if it was you that brought up leaderes, but my post was directed to that. I agree with you AP, Oh my post was in reply to Leo&#39;s

[Leo]

but if you think about it, if there wasnt some kind of leader, intellectual or military or otherwise, we wouldnt have a movement.

Well leaders aren&#39;t literally nothing. They are nothing compared to the working class. The only leadership I see necessary is an intellectual one. Those leaders would not be above the workers in decision making in any way.


Leaders lead by example. They are the visionaries who inspire change, and teach with their actions. If they are a strategist people listen to them because they are wise and their communities respect them.

Yes. Intellectual leaders should lead by example, and the historical mission of intellectuals is to unite the working class. This cannot be done without setting the example first, therefore revolutionary intellectuals should unite with each other first. After uniting the proletariat, those intellectuals will simply be a part of the working class. They will of course tell what they think should be done, but it is the working class who will decide.

[Shredder]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+May 13 2006, 11:01 PM--> (Leo Uilleann &#064; May 13 2006, 11:01 PM)There, we see the &#39;hidden hand&#39; of dialectics at its worst&#33; The defeatist logic you use, and call historical materialism, is actually pure dialectics. Capitalism is thesis, Communism is antithesis, and you think the only &#39;realistic&#39; sollution would be creating &#39;socialism&#39; in theory as a synthesis, and with each new &#39;antithesis&#39; it is supposed to move towards &#39;communism&#39;, but it will never[...][/b]
Not only does this blatant straw man have nothing to do with what I believe, not only does it have nothing to do with dialectical materialism, it also has absolutely nothing to do with the quotation you were responding to. Those are three perfectly good reasons that you are wrong, so I&#39;ll leave it at that. Also, your posts would look better without the random bold text and quotation marks.

Redstar 2000.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Like a number of people here, your real objection to capitalism is that you weren&#39;t born into the ruling class...a historical oversight that you intend to rectify at the first opportunity.

Ad hoc: check. Ad hominem: check. Two-line paragraph: check. Unneccessary and excessive use of bold text: check. Delusional paranoia of "Leninists": check. If you had only remembered to add some quotation marks around "rectify" or something, you&#39;d have reached your personal pinnacle.

I have, in the past, accused you of brain damage, delusions, or even psychotic paranoia. It not just to use some type of lame-ass debate trick. Normally, I think your anarchist ilk are just idealistic or gullible, and I would be moronic to think someone mentally ill, particularly when psychotic delusions explicitly exclude beliefs clearly tied to the individual&#39;s culture. But you-- your accusations truly are quite bizarre and preposterous. Here, anyone who does not share your pure anarchist dream, you accuse of being a careerist who simply wants to exploit people for wealth, fame and/or power. If you actually sent that idea through the right neural channels, you&#39;d realize it&#39;s patently absurd. You should be able to instantly figure out that I&#39;m probably a white suburban american male who can use the internet without typing LOL all the time, and that therefore if I wanted power, fame or fortune out of any given circumstance, capitalism guarantees me better results, less effort, and less risk. But for some reason, you could not make this judgement. And it wasn&#39;t one slip up, but repeated throughout this thread and others. Compound this with your utopian beliefs and ridiculous writing habits, and you can see why I think there&#39;s something more to you than just plain anarchism.



Armchair
[Freudian short story about power drills and plumbing...]and therefore, the current levels of technology in plumbing probably are sufficient for that work to be done on a voluntary basis.

Let me explain the difference between me and you, between Marxists and anarchists. Because the difference is not that my head is in feudal Russia. My concerns are fixed on the material conditions of today.

The real difference comes in my materialistic vs your idealistic realization of supply and demand. You think that modern technology is close to the point where all labor can be DIY or voluntary. You never stop to look around your room. You have a computer, all its parts, which had to be formed from raw materials; you have books, CDs, clocks, and their individual parts; you have a desk, made of wood, possibly grown in a tree farm; you have a car outside, and roads for it to drive on, and places for it to drive to. And for some reason, you imagine that this can all be done voluntarily, with no mechanism to determine how much of what needs to be made. People will just take turns cleaning the sewers and settle for whatever consumables are available to them. In a word, you seek to ignore supply and demand, to wish it away.

Marxists are materialists to the bone. We do not seek to abolish the laws of supply and demand, because they cannot be abolished. We seek instead to bring them under the collective control of society. We wish to wrest our fate from the invisible hand of the market, to be its master rather than its slave. We do not expect, that, if people were to give and take as the pleased, resources would find their way into the most productive and beneficial allocations.

Lucky for you guys I had to keep this brief for time reasons.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:17 AM
but if you think about it, if there wasnt some kind of leader, intellectual or military or otherwise, we wouldnt have a movement.
Somebody has been smoking some Leninism. <_<

[KC]

Somebody has been smoking some Leninism.

Reread the quote:


but if you think about it, if there wasnt some kind of leader, intellectual or military or otherwise, we wouldnt have a movement.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)The real difference comes in my materialistic vs your idealistic realization of supply and demand.[/b]

I haven&#39;t been talking about the "realization of supply and demand" because the principles behind supply and demand are, apparently, useless. There&#39;s a member here, ComradeRed, who can point out how supply and demand is a useless way to measure an economy; it can&#39;t measure past 10 or something complex and mathematical.

So therefore, supply and demand serves the purpose of making the pictures of bourgeois economists look pretty....and that&#39;s about it. After all, as Ricardo put it, "There are some commodities, the value of which is determined by their scarcity alone" and "Their value is wholly independent of the quantity of labour originally necessary to produce them, and varies with the varying wealth and inclinations of those who are desirous to possess them. These commodities, however, form a very small part of the mass of commodities daily exchanged in the market."

So essentially, the rules of bourgeois economists, supply and demand, are only a factor in a limited way....the most important factor, rather, is labour. So really, the question becomes, can it be said that, as you put it, "modern technology is close to the point where all labor can be DIY or voluntary"?

I&#39;ve already said that I think, in plumbing, the answer to said question is yes; but what about the things you listed?

1) "You have a computer, all its parts, which had to be formed from raw materials".

Indeed they do; I&#39;ll freely admit that I know little of process in which computers are made, but the drastic lowering of prices over the last 10 years (my first full PC cost about £600, my second, a better PC by the way, cost £200) should tell us that the labour required to make computers is becoming less and less.

Does this mean that the remaining labour required "has" to take the form of wage-labour? I don&#39;t know; but the fact that there are millions of ordinary people who don&#39;t work in the Computer Industry but who still have an active interest in computer design, suggests to me that there would be enough people willing to use some of their free time making and designing computers.

2) "you have books".

Very few actually....I get most of my reading material off the internet. This, as you know, has been put on the internet (mainly) by people using their free time. MIA, as far as I&#39;m aware, doesn&#39;t pay people to transcribe works, people just volunteer to do it. Additionally, of course, I&#39;ve heard that there is technology that allows one to scan a book and then "pick up" the text and convert it into HTML format.

So this all suggests that people can have a rich variety of reading material without wage-labour being used....fuck, I suspect it would only need about 10-20 people spending their time transcribing books in order to create a sufficient variety of reading materials for millions of people.

3) "CDs".

Not many again....I&#39;m not much of a Music "fan". Yet, most people I know, either download their Music or get copied CD&#39;s. Been as either of these, especially downloading Music, require wage-labour to function, I think we could say that voluntary labour is already happening in this particular field.

4) "clocks, and their individual parts".

This seems a bit out in left field; but still, the exchange value of clocks suggests that very little labour is required....whether that labour could be done on a voluntary basis, I don&#39;t know.

5) "you have a desk, made of wood, possibly grown in a tree farm".

Desk came flat-packed and it was very cheap. Which suggests that little labour was required....indeed, as far as I know, the making of flat-packed furniture is one where machines play a pretty large part.

Which again, suggests that this could be done on a voluntary basis by those with a particular interest in furniture design.

6) "you have a car outside, and roads for it to drive on, and places for it to drive to".

I catch public transport myself; so the roads bit still applies to me. And the funny thing is, they&#39;re already laid....meaning the intensive labour required to create a modern transport system has already been done&#33;

And even if I did have a car, there are literally millions of people interested in car design and so on; so like with computers, I&#39;m sure they&#39;d donate some of their free time to the manufacture of cars....which is actually, unless I&#39;m mistaken, highly automated these days.


Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)And for some reason, you imagine that this can all be done voluntarily, with no mechanism to determine how much of what needs to be made.[/b]

Got enough straw for your strawman "Shredder"?

Just because something is done on a "voluntary" basis, doesn&#39;t mean that there can&#39;t be a "mechanism to determine how much of what needs to be made". Where as you seem to think we can "use" the Market to gauge "need"....I&#39;d prefer a much simpler and more accurate system myself.

A simple order system, where person A who wants appliance X simply puts their name on a list by contacting the commune that makes X and asking if they can order one, would, in my opinion, be a sufficient way of determining "need".

More complex ways, using card-swipe technology, computer programs and so on, could be developed....but all in all, a simple order system would be good enough to allow the producers to judge how popular their product was.

And, of course, if a product was particularly popular, the producers of that product, given the way a communist society would work, would likely have an incredibly enhanced social status. Steve the computer designer, would be invited to all the best parties, would get loads of communal respect and so on.

Indeed if the situation arose where there were too few producers, that potential social status, perhaps combined with the producers of Y getting special placement on order lists, would be sufficient to correct said problem.

There are methods other than the Market for determining "need". And these methods are better because, unlike the Market which determines ability to pay (this wouldn&#39;t be very different under a Party despotism, because the Party Officials would obviously have an enhanced ability to pay when compared with the average citizen), the other methods would determine actual "need".


Originally posted by Shredder
People will just take turns cleaning the sewers and settle for whatever consumables are available to them.

Possibly, possibly not.

Try this: Who Will Clean the Sewers? September 12, 2003 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Originally posted by Shredder
In a word, you seek to ignore supply and demand, to wish it away.

Well, I don&#39;t want to "wish it away", but I do want to "ignore" it.

Personally, I&#39;d prefer using a system of measurement where we evaluated available labour, in other words ability, and then determined actual "need". Brainier people than I would be able to work out the "fine details" of this system, but I think we should at least try to devise a system that would give us accurate results.

Mathematically sound indications about an economy and its production from which we can rationally decide, to borrow a phrase, what is to be done, seems a far superior method of social organisation when compared to the mystical "invisible hand" of Monsieur Smith.


[email protected]
We wish to wrest our fate from the invisible hand of the market, to be its master rather than its slave.

Essentially, you "wish" to create State Monopoly Capitalism....that is, capitalism controlled by the "Party" and not the Market. Well, as the last century showed, you and your Party will become "masters", but the rest of us will remain wage-slaves.

You represent, to all intents and purposes, the left wing of capital.


LoneRed
you would... anarchists stick together like peanut butter and jelly

So Lenin was wrong then? Anarchists aren&#39;t "petty-bourgeois individualists" but they are, instead, a collective and united force. :o

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 15 2006, 03:13 PM
Reread the quote:


but if you think about it, if there wasnt some kind of leader, intellectual or military or otherwise, we wouldnt have a movement.
Ok, what do you want me to say? Somebody&#39;s been smoking some intellectual Leninism?

:lol:

[KC]

Ok, what do you want me to say? Somebody&#39;s been smoking some intellectual Leninism?


How about "Nevermind, you&#39;re completely right. I guess I should pay you now. Is &#036;50 reasonable for this lesson?" :)

[Nachie]

Is &#036;50 reasonable for this lesson?
Not unless "this lesson" is code for "big fat bag of chronic".

Look at you, already trying to figure out ways to get money for being in the vanguard. :rolleyes:

[LoneRed]

firstly AS, i take it that was sarcasm, but where theres one anarchist theres bound to be more running around, even if they are individualist, ask them, shit makes no sense to me either.

to Nachie, without some kind of "leader" as in a person who laid these views out, for marxists, marx, for anarchists krotopkin,bakunin and the rest of the miscreants. if you like the word "leader" or not is irrelevant , the fact of the matter is, there wouldnt be a movement without certain individuals.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:43 PM
if you like the word "leader" or not is irrelevant , the fact of the matter is, there wouldnt be a movement without certain individuals.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong&#33;

The working class would still rise and kick ass regardless of if there was some bearded asshat around to call it something philosophical.

[LoneRed]

but there would be NO program for action unless someONE or a small group of people thought of it. get real.

[Leo]

Not only does this blatant straw man have nothing to do with what I believe, not only does it have nothing to do with dialectical materialism, it also has absolutely nothing to do with the quotation you were responding to.

Lets first combine remarks you made...


The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences,
in wealth will still persist...


Real communists don&#39;t expect the second stage of communism to ever become reality.


Attempting to skip, therefore, to the second phase of communism, without the proper requisites, would result in an unstable system that could not produce efficiently or continue to advance. What are the prerequisites for this world where the rule is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Unless you are a person with a lust for power, fantasies of leading others and therefore becoming a despot, you are either unconsiously using dialectics, or you are just parroting Lenin who used the same logic to see what you say with good
intentions and see what the revolution Lenin led is doing right now&#33;

Let me repeat what I said about the dialectical logic used to get where you are,

Capitalism is thesis, Communism is antithesis, dialectics dictate that there should be a synthesis, so some aspects of capitalism, lack of justice and equality, unjust differences in wealth will still exist. Let&#39;s call this Socialism&#33; The
first stage of Capitalism. The second phase will never be reality because altough with every anti-thesis which will bring us closer to Communism, we will never actually reach it. If we attempt to skip the first stage, the first synthesis, no other sythesis will happen, we won&#39;t move towards communism.

Lenin himself used this logic, consciously or unconsciously, but with good intentions. The results were tragic. Lets see what happened: Capitalism was allowed to live in the USSR and other so-called &#39;socialist&#39;. It grew back to its old strength, finally it regenerated the capitalist classes.


Also, your posts would look better without the random bold text and quotation marks.


If you don&#39;t like the way I write, well, though shit&#33; Vanguards and leaders had their time. You have no alternative, what you have left to offer is only failure. Don&#39;t tell me or anyone, anyone of the working class what to do. Don&#39;t even dare. Now it is the proletariat&#39;s turn to tell what to do and do what it wants&#33;

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:53 PM
but there would be NO program for action unless someONE or a small group of people thought of it. get real.
Sorry buddy, but your "leadership" just isn&#39;t that important to actual proletarians. I know it&#39;s comforting to the vanguard to see history as the actions of individual kings, rulers, representatives, great thinkers, and themselves, but fortunately Marx didn&#39;t really buy that.

In fact it reminds me of a quote from this book (http://libcom.org/library/snb-role-bolshevik-party):


Thus Lenin, aware that the glorious vanguard was again lagging behind the masses, tried desperately to preserve its prophetic role and, in so doing, had to break the very rules of democratic centralism he himself had formulated.

&#39;In the upper circles of the party&#39; he wrote, &#39;a wavering is to be observed, a sort of dread of the struggle for power, an inclination to replace the struggle with resolutions, protests and conferences.&#39; And this is what Trotsky had to say about it: &#39;This is already almost a direct pitúting of the party against the Central Committee. Lenin did not decide lightly upon such steps, but it was a question of the fate of the revoluútion and all other considerations fell away.&#39; (op. cit. Volume III, 132 f.)

In short, the success of the revolution called for action against the &#39;highest circles of the party&#39;, who, from February to October, utterly failed to play the revolutionary role they ought to have taken in theory. The masses themselves made the revolution, with or even against the party - this much at least was clear to Trotsky the historian. But far from drawing the correct conclusion, Trotsky the theorist continued to argue that the masses are incapable of making a revolution without a leader. To begin with he admits that &#39;Tugan-Baranovsky is right when he says that the February revolution was accomplished by workers and peasants - the latter in the person of the soldiers. But there still remains the great question: who led the revolution, who led the workúers to their feet? ... It was solved most simply by the universal formula: nobody led the revolution, it happened of itself.&#39; (op. cit. Volume I, 145.)

Trotsky not only put the question very well but also gave a clear answer: the Revolution was the spontaneous expression of the will of the masses - not just in theory but in actual practice. But Trotsky the theúorist could not accept the obvious answer: he had to refute it since the idea of a centralised leadership is the crux of his dogma and must be upheld at all costs. Hence he quoted with approval Zavadsky&#39;s dictum that, spontaneous conception is still more out of place in sociology than in natural science. Owing to the fact that none of the revolutionary leaders with a name was able to hang his label on the movement, it becomes not impersonal but merely nameless.&#39; (op. cit. Volume I, 151.)

We wish to say no more. Anonymity is precisely what characterizes a spontaneous movement, i.e. one that disdains the tutelage of official organisations, that will have no official name. Trotsky&#39;s argument is quite different: there can be no revolution without leadership and if no leaders can be pointed out, it is simply because the leaders are anonyúmous. Thus, after recalling that the &#39;Union of Officers of February 27&#39;, formed just after the revolution, tried to determine with a questionnaire who first led out the Volynsky Regiment, Trotsky explains: &#39;They received seven answers naming seven initiators of this decisive action. It is very likely, we may add, that a part of the initiative really did belong to several soldiers.&#39; (op. cit. Volume I, 150.) Why then will he not admit that the soldiers took more than &#39;part&#39; of the initiative? Because Trotsky prefers another explanation: &#39;It is not impossible that the chief initiator fell in the street fighting carrying his name with him into oblivion.&#39; Thus Trotsky, the historian, doctors the historical evidence to introduce a mythical leader, whose existence cannot be verified because he is dead&#33; Another example quoted by Trotsky highlights the absurdity of this line of argument: &#39;On Friday, 24 February, nobody in the upper circles as yet expected a revolution ... a tram car in which a senator was riding turned off quite unexpectedly with such a jar that the windows rattled and one was broken ... Its conductor told everybody to get off: "The car isn&#39;t going any further" ... The movement of the tramways stopped everyúwhere as far as the eye could see.&#39; (op. cit. Volume I, 151.)

Trotsky makes the following comment: &#39;That resolute conductor, in whom the liberal officials could already catch a glimpse of the "wolf-look" must have been dominated by a high sense of duty in order all by himself to stop a car containing officials on the streets of imperiúal Petersburg in time of war. It was just such conductors who stopped the car of the monarchy and with practically the same words - This car does not go any further&#33; The conductor on the Liteiny boulevard was a conscious factor of history. It had been necessary to educate him in advance.&#39; (op. cit. Volume I, 151 f.)

And a few lines further down he repeats the same refrain: &#39;Those nameless, austere statesmen of the factory and street did not fall out of the sky: they had to be educated.&#39; (op. cit. Volume I, 152.)

The Party as such played no role in these decisive days, but those who were the real actors, &#39;the conscious instruments of history&#39;, had needs to be educated, and by whom if not by the Party? In short, the past actions of the Party justify its present inactivity. There are but two alternatives for Trotsky: either people have fallen out of the sky or else they must have been educated by the Party. The first hypothesis being absurd, the second is the only possible answer. But as the Jewish father said to his son: &#39;My boy, whenever there are two alternatives, choose the third.&#39; Now that alternative is simply that the workers could have manúaged without a Party, just as they do in their everyday life. Let us see what Trotsky himself has to say on this subject: &#39;The anaemic and preútentious intelligentsia ... was burning with desire to teach the popular masses ... but was absolutely incapable of understanding them and of learning anything from them. Now, failing this, there can be no revoluútionary politics.&#39; This judgement applies equally well to Trotsky himself, who was responsible for the regimentation of labour and for shooting the Kronstadt rebels. But Trotsky is not aware of this fact, and his History is so valuable precisely because he is honest, or stupid, enough to list the facts that contradict his every conclusion. Forgetting what he has written on page 151, he notes that &#39;one of the factories carried this placard: "The Right to Life is Higher than the Rights of Private Property&#39;. This slogan had not been suggested by the party.&#39; (op. cit. Volume I, 419.)

[Shredder]

Let me repeat what I said about the dialectical logic used to get where you are,

You&#39;re new and trying to spam up your post count, so I&#39;ll go easy on you.

The entire anti-dialectic movement in this community is founded on one soundly principled slogan: "An idea is right or wrong based on its own merit, not based on whatever superstitious means used to arrive at it." Or equivalent statement.

Contrariwise, here is what you do: You take a few excerpts from my post and sloppily mutilate them into the barely-Marxist definition of dialectics you found on Dictionary.com. You then present the syllogism: Dialectics is rubbish, your argument is dialectical, therefore your argument is rubbish&#33;

So much for the anti-dialectical slogan. Instead of concerning yourself with the merit of the argument, you have simply used the slogan, as it has been used before, as an excuse to dismiss an argument because it might resemble dialectics. In the name of anti-dialectics, you betray its entire premise.


Just because something is done on a "voluntary" basis, doesn&#39;t mean that there can&#39;t be a "mechanism to determine how much of what needs to be made". Where as you seem to think we can "use" the Market to gauge "need"....I&#39;d prefer a much simpler and more accurate system myself.

A simple order system, where person A who wants appliance X simply puts their name on a list by contacting the commune that makes X and asking if they can order one, would, in my opinion, be a sufficient way of determining "need".

You can produce according to demand, or you can have voluntary labor. Not both. If you have voluntary labor, then production is determined by how many people want to make how much of what, and demand must conform to this. If production is instead determined by demand in all its elasticity, then labor is no more voluntary than under capitalism, because the kind and amount of labor used it dictated by the kind and amount of commodities in demand.


So therefore, supply and demand serves the purpose of making the pictures of bourgeois economists look pretty....and that&#39;s about it. After all, as Ricardo put it, "There are some commodities, the value of which is determined by their scarcity alone" and "Their value is wholly independent of the quantity of labour originally necessary to produce them, and varies with the varying wealth and inclinations of those who are desirous to possess them. These commodities, however, form a very small part of the mass of commodities daily exchanged in the market."

So essentially, the rules of bourgeois economists, supply and demand, are only a factor in a limited way....the most important factor, rather, is labour.

The Ricardo passage seems to contradict what you said. What Ricardo is revealing is that, in the labor theory of value, the labor-value is a result of capitalist commodity production. The labor-value is realized through means of supply and demand, not in contradistinction to them. A few decades later bourgeois economists would come into full realization of equilibrium values, a more precise and mathematical expression of the same. Outside of commodity production, i.e. the production of goods or services specifically for use in trade, labor-value has no life. Thus, some object like an original Van Gogh, cannot be produced as a commodity because its value lies in the fact that it is original. Thus, its "value is wholly independent of the quantity of labour originally necessary to produce them, and varies with the varying wealth and inclinations of those who are desirous to possess them." There is no equillibrium price, there is no labor-value, because it is not a product of commodity production.

The idea of a &#39;labor & need&#39; economy that rejects supply & demand, therefore, is puzzling. If persons simply pre-order everything they want, we do not have a gauge of the elasticity of demand. That is, no way to determine how much one kind of labor is demanded relative to any other. We simply know that it is demanded. Thus, all forms of labor are equal, which means voluntary, and we can say that this is a demand to perform labor. Therefore, different kinds of labor would not in fact be equal at all, since the supply has no means of correspondance with demand. This means that cases would be abundant of people who desperately need a pair of shoes then million times more than they want a supercomputer, but end up with the latter anyway because there are too many computer guys and not enough shoe factories.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by LoneRed+--> (LoneRed)but there would be NO program for action unless someONE or a small group of people thought of it.[/b]

Yet a program, in the grand scheme of things, is a pretty superfluous thing.

The Russian workers, and for that matter the German workers, when they set up their Workers Councils, are unlikely to have read about Councils in a program....and given how small Council Communism was as a tendency back then, it&#39;s unlikely that that was what inspired them to set up Councils. Rather, the workers acted, more or less, spontaneously and created bodies through which they could express their class interests.

Granted, the more widespread communist ideas are, the quicker said workers will act in accordance to their class interests when the material environment facilitates working class uprising....but, in effect, a class know almost "naturally" what to do when "history knocks on its door".

Certainly, as far as I know, virtually all the Intellectual Marxists back then were surprised that the workers set up Councils. Indeed, I know of no program which called for them to do this.

When a whole class decides to rise, they often create new bodies through which they can express their interests....ones which no program has predicted.


Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)You can produce according to demand, or you can have voluntary labor. Not both.[/b]

Really?

So what would said voluntary labour be producing if not something people wanted and "demanded"? After all, there&#39;s little point in producing an item that no one wants....indeed, I doubt many people would actually want to do that.

Just because there&#39;s no "incentive" or "force" to make people produce, doesn&#39;t mean that those who produce will not try to adequately supply "need". They probably won&#39;t want to "push themselves to the limit", but they&#39;ll still attempt to satisfy the "needs" of society.


Originally posted by Shredder
If you have voluntary labor, then production is determined by how many people want to make how much of what, and demand must conform to this.

Demand today conforms to these rules....I may "demand" a new computer, but if no one puts the necessary labour into making a computer and them puts it up for sale at a reasonable price, then my "demand" is worthless.

Goods have to be produced before a "demand" can be anything other than a subjective desire. In a communist society, people will have to demand what they can actually have....which is, more or less, what happens now.

And if a section of society finds that they desperately want something but it&#39;s not being supplied, then they&#39;ll likely use their own free time to produce said good.

Now, the question then becomes is there a way, in a society based on voluntary labour, to try to gauge how much of X society will want and whether society will be able to meet that "need"? The answer, of course, is yes. Within a few years of a gift economy, I suspect there will be many methods of accurately determining how much of X is "needed"....and people will plan how to meet that need.

Indeed, unlike now, where if you "demand" something that you can&#39;t get hold of your "demand" becomes worthless; in a communist society, people will be able to contribute to meeting their own demands. Joe may desire a new car, yet when he discovers in January that there is too little voluntary labour to meet the "car quota" for the upcoming year, Joe may well decide to go and spend some time in the car commune in order to try and get his new car.

Demand is always "determined by how many people want to make how much of what"....but unlike now, where that decision is made by business owners, a communist society will allow its citizens to actively contribute to the fulfilment of their "demands".


Originally posted by Shredder
The Ricardo passage seems to contradict what you said.

Nope; he&#39;s saying that the ideas about supply and demand effecting an economy, only come into play with regards particularly rare items. Where as the rest of the time, amount of labour available, in other words supply, is what governs an economy.


Originally posted by Shredder
The labor-value is realized through means of supply and demand, not in contradistinction to them.

Huh? :huh:

I&#39;m no Economist, but as far as I can tell, they do contradict each other. Supply and demand theory, basically posits that higher demand will lower the value of a product; where as theories based on labour value, basically posit that regardless of demand, the price of a commodity changes based on the amount of labour added to it.


Originally posted by Shredder
The idea of a &#39;labor & need&#39; economy that rejects supply & demand, therefore, is puzzling.

Not really....but then, I haven&#39;t given "need" an equal status.

"Need" can&#39;t be gauged without labour, so therefore, in order to effectively meet "need", we have to figure out how much labour we "have" and plan from there.

And that&#39;s where the ordering comes in. An order ("demand") is meaningless if it is not met ("supplied"); so therefore, in a communist society, people will, as individuals, have to effectively pan in order to meet their "needs"....and often, I suspect, they&#39;ll help meet their own "needs" by contributing their "ability" to the production of a particular commodity.

Granted, in a vague philosophical sense, this would mean that their labour was "compelled", and therefore not "voluntary"....but in the real world, it would, essentially, be a a scenario where rational human actors help fulfill their individual "needs".


Originally posted by Shredder
If persons simply pre-order everything they want, we do not have a gauge of the elasticity of demand.

Again, huh? :huh:

If someone orders a new car, then the car commune knows that a car has been "demanded" and therefore, can either contribute their labour to the making of said car or not.

And additionally, I didn&#39;t say we&#39;d pre-order "everything" and what the fuck does the "elasticity of demand" mean?


[email protected]
That is, no way to determine how much one kind of labor is demanded relative to any other.

For the third time, huh? :huh:

If someone orders a car, we&#39;ve got a pretty fair idea that they "need" the labour of car makers....and not the labour of bakers&#33; :lol:

You live in a strange world.


Shredder
This means that cases would be abundant of people who desperately need a pair of shoes then million times more than they want a supercomputer, but end up with the latter anyway because there are too many computer guys and not enough shoe factories.

You think that computer makers are just going to waste their free time producing computers that no one wants? :blink:

People are really not that dull&#33;

And should the situation arise where there is a shoe shortage, people will make shoes. That is, they&#39;ll donate their free time to the shoe making process instead of going bare-foot....and if there&#39;s a massive shoe shortage, they&#39;ll probably gain an enhanced social status for doing this.

Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that if there is no monetary incentive for people to do X, X won&#39;t get done....that argument, as it happens, is commonly found in the Opposing Ideologies forum. But that you present it, doesn&#39;t surprise me; after all, people like you, just represent the "left wing of capital".

That is, you&#39;re anti-communist to the core&#33; :angry:

[Armed_Philosopher]

Has there ever been an example of a Communist nation even getting close to stage 2 after getting side tracked by stage 1?

If not, then you either need to bring something new to the table or admit defeat.


There are many good ideas within the old Marxist models that are still salvagable, but there is something very wrong with the systems that have been tried that they have so obviously failed every time they were attempted.

[Leo]

You&#39;re new and trying to spam up your post count, so I&#39;ll go easy on you.

The entire anti-dialectic movement in this community is founded on one soundly principled slogan: "An idea is right or wrong based on its own merit, not based on whatever superstitious means used to arrive at it." Or equivalent statement.

Contrariwise, here is what you do: You take a few excerpts from my post and sloppily mutilate them into the barely-Marxist definition of dialectics you found on Dictionary.com. You then present the syllogism: Dialectics is rubbish, your argument is dialectical, therefore your argument is rubbish&#33;

So much for the anti-dialectical slogan. Instead of concerning yourself with the merit of the argument, you have simply used the slogan, as it has been used before, as an excuse to dismiss an argument because it might resemble dialectics. In the name of anti-dialectics, you betray its entire premise.


I’ve been anti-dialectical before I entered this site and I don’t give a shit about my post count.
Despite your attraction to polemics and insults, you seem to try to make reasonable explanations, so I’ll go easy on you too. I hope you learn a good lesson about not to underestimate people you don’t know.
My anti-dialectic argument is quite the opposite of what you comprehend. What I say is that your argument is rubbish; therefore dialectics is rubbish because you use, or parrot your ‘great leaders’ who used dialectics. I was not attacking your ideas, I was attacking dialectics. Now I will attack your arguments.


Greater organization is a synonym for greater division of labor, and it will always entail greater centralization of planning. That&#39;s what communism is all about in the first place, uniting separate means of production under one cooperative plan. The means of production produce as the plan tells them to. The mind thinks and the body does. If we were to undo this organization, its description would instead tell us that the means of production plan themselves. Which is what happens in capitalism.

Your understanding of communism is pretty dull, so is your understanding of Capitalism. Lets se how Marx defines communism:
“Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.”
This might be a little ‘anarchistic’ and even ‘romantic’ for you, and it most definitely is too deep so lets also look at a shorter and simpler definition from Engels that you can understand easily
“Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.”
Liberation of the proletariat... Liberation, you notice that right? Not having a new ‘mind’ class as a result of the division of labor. The way you describe Communism, is actually not different from Capitalism. Capitalism is not “means of production planning for themselves”. It is the capitalist class, formed out of individual capitalists making the planning and workers working. The ‘mind’ you describe might not consist of individual capitalists, but as a class, it is the capitalist class. Your version of communism is objectively capitalist, and if the system is objectively capitalist but subjectively (according to the leaders) communist, the objective will adjust the subjective accordingly, so individual capitalists will regenerate themselves. Working class does not need your ‘mind’ telling them what to do. Communist movement itself is an attempt of workers to liberate themselves from all those ‘minds’ telling them they would be lost without them. It’s bullshit, keep your mind, we have our own&#33;
Coming to centralization/ decentralization conflict, there is no conflict under communism. There is balance. Lenin understood this situation quite well by expressing it as:
“Communism is soviets plus electrification.”
Soviets represent autonomous will, and electrification represents collective will. There is a balance between them depending on the situations.


Domestic capitalism has developed &#39;some countries&#39; but has been directly responsible for holding the rest of them down. The countries that didn&#39;t get in on capitalism a few hundred years ago are eternally stuck in stasis except where they cheat and use the power of a centralized economy to catch up. Capitalism is the definition of a pyramid scheme, incapable of building up the bottom of the pyramid.

This, I agree. It’s quite well said actually, you have an understanding of imperialism, which is a very important part of capitalism.


The developing countries, in this hypothetical socialism in one country situation, would either continue be economically enslaved by the communist countries, or else isolated from them and thus unable to benefit from the division of labor and comparative advantage of the earth, and therefore bereft of enough cumulative surplus value needed to advance the means of production.
Which brings me to the real "excuse" for "putting off communism indefinitely". The delusional utopia you ultralefters call communism is what real Marxists call the second stage of communism. It requires absurdly advanced means of production. Real communists don&#39;t expect the second stage of communism to ever become reality. It&#39;s merely a point, a horizon that we always move toward without ever arriving.

The first part is not a bad point to be honest, but Marx has a solution for that: the village commune. Check what I’ve wrote on that if you are interested: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49996
As for the second part, there is not that big of a difference between the stages of communism. Read Marx, there is nothing absurd. If you want to see an example of a ‘real’ first stage of communism, look at the Paris Commune. First stage, the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie” is a tricky term. Rosa Luxemburg explains it like this:
“Yes, dictatorship&#33;... But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.”
In most ways, the first phase of communism will be very similar to the second phase of communism. There won’t be a radical change between phases.
The main difference will be that there won’t be any bourgeois around, so the revolution itself indeed can very well be the first phase.


What we have here is, on the one hand, Marxists, who expect to improve working conditions & increase abundance, through the abolition of class society and the centralized, cooperative planning of production for use instead of for profit; and, on the other hand, Redstar and his acolytes who expect everyone to spontaneously start sharing freely and producing only what they enjoy producing for no compensation. I will leave it to the reader to decide which is the feasible materialist model, and which is the idealist dogma, spiraling further into delusion with each successive post.

Here I see two things in you: first one is that you don’t understand the revolution, second one is that you don’t trust the proletariat, you think you are above them and they are stupid, unable. For the first part, all I can say is that a revolution and consciously building a new system will change the subconscious norms in the mind of workers. The artificial balance between production and consumption capitalism has, their proof that the system works, preserves itself by constantly increasing the imbalance of income. That is the only possible artificial balance; any other forms of artificial balance will return to that. Instead of creating a new artificial balance, which is what you are trying to do, the thing what should be done is to replace the artificial balance with a natural one. If you think about it, money is just a piece of paper, and it allows you to get materials that are in fact way more valuable than that piece of paper. All we will do is to abolish this artificial tool, take it away from the sharing process. Every artificial smile and feeling will be replaced with natural, real ones. Will there be exceptions: of course there will be, but exceptions prove the rightness of the rule. But as you quote Lenin and Lenin quotes Marx in ‘The State and the Revolution’:
“For if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.”
Most definitely, there will be some amount of a social organism and everything wont work naturally, but as the communist society progress, historical conditions will make organisms and rules, which wont really be many, unnecessery. This is materialism.
As for the second part, no man had ever been or will ever be above the masses. If you think you are, you are a capitalist&#33;


Trying to skip to a stage without the ability to advance the means of production to a corresponding stage results in a contradiction between the means of production and the social relations of production.

This first phase of Communism should be like heaven compared to every aspect of capitalism. Otherwise, there will never be a revolution. You don’t really understand this first phase and second phase. First phase cannot be a totally different thing from the second one. Indeed, they are so close that only Marx can tell them accurately apart, not Lenin, and definitely not you&#33;


You can produce according to demand, or you can have voluntary labor. Not both. If you have voluntary labor, then production is determined by how many people want to make how much of what, and demand must conform to this. If production is instead determined by demand in all its elasticity, then labor is no more voluntary than under capitalism, because the kind and amount of labor used it dictated by the kind and amount of commodities in demand.

Here, you confuse demand with need. They are in fact very different. Producing according to demand is a notion of capitalism. If you have voluntary labor, you will produce accordingly to need in the first place and workers will be free. This is a notion of communism.


QUOTE (Shredder)
This means that cases would be abundant of people who desperately need a pair of shoes then million times more than they want a supercomputer, but end up with the latter anyway because there are too many computer guys and not enough shoe factories.


You think that computer makers are just going to waste their free time producing computers that no one wants?

People are really not that dull&#33;

And should the situation arise where there is a shoe shortage, people will make shoes. That is, they&#39;ll donate their free time to the shoe making process instead of going bare-foot....and if there&#39;s a massive shoe shortage, they&#39;ll probably gain an enhanced social status for doing this.

Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that if there is no monetary incentive for people to do X, X won&#39;t get done....that argument, as it happens, is commonly found in the Opposing Ideologies forum. But that you present it, doesn&#39;t surprise me; after all, people like you, just represent the "left wing of capital".

That is, you&#39;re anti-communist to the core&#33;


Very well said Armchair Socialism, I’ve got nothing to add to that.


Anarchism and communism are associated because, in this forum, many who call themselves communists or "lib-Marxists" are actually just anarchists. I use "anarcho-hippie" as the blanket term.

This is the final nail in your coffin. Not only are you so arrogant that you think you are cleverer than the entire working class, but also you are trying label others and divide the working class. You are a counter-revolutionary. You are a traitor of the working class. We, workers are lucky because all Leninists are not like you. Take your arrogant ass and go to Opposing Ideologies&#33; That&#39;s where you belong&#33;

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Armed Philosopher
Ive heard about "credit" systems, and that seems reasonable enough.

Such systems should be used only as needed, and abolished when they no longer serve their purpose.
I agree completely. Have you ever read or heard anything about Time Labor Vouchers (TLVs)?

[LoneRed]

Nachie, Nachie Nachie tsk tsk tsk


Tell me whered your ideas come from? huh Goldman,Proudhon, pick any of the anarchists, or Marx,Engels, whatever, it doesnt matter, if none of those men or women existed where would you be? we dont know do we. But given that youd still be an anarchist, whatever that would mean without some of these people, there still would have been someONE or a group of people to put together the IDEA of Anarchism. The proletariat as a whole wasnt like how about anarchism guys.... Nope doesnt work that way.

[anomaly]

Actually, the point, LoneRed, is that if those &#39;great thinkers&#39; didn&#39;t think of these ideas, other people would have.

As such, there is no rhyme or reason behind the senseless idol worship we unfrotunately see so often.

"Marx said it so it gotsta be true." You know what people say to that? Nothing. They just show you a finger.

Small groups of people and/or individuals don&#39;t make history. They are ultimately meaningless. However, material conditions and the masses themselves do make history.

[LoneRed]

wow, way to take Everything i said and turn it up side down. I never said they make history, but it is foolish to say that they didnt have a very influential part in history. Of course if they hadnt someone else would have, thats the whole damn point, to have such movement without a brain child, or some kind of theoretical background is a ridiculous concept as their would be NONE&#33;

I never said i take all their words for truth, but to deny their importance is foolishness

[Shredder]

If the labor theory of value directly translated to the price of an object, then LTV would be evidently wrong.

Marx on why the labor-value only corresponds with price through supply and demand. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm) (As always keep in mind that Marxist economics is primitive, and ineffectual without the support of modern ideas.)

Anyway, elasticity of demand. I expect you&#39;ve seen a supply/demand curve graph. Elasticity refers to the slope of the lines.

At a given price, a person will want or not want a given commodity, hence demand. Now combine a number of individuals who will or will not buy at a given price, and instead of a boolean value, you get a number, determining how many people will buy it at that price--aggregate demand. Now you can graph this as a function where the X axis is the price and the Y axis is the aggregate demand. This line is the elasticity of demand. It is the demand curve. It measures the fact that changes in price affect different products differently. When the price of gas doubles, people still buy almost equal amounts of it. If the price of pizza doubles, people eat their veggies.

The replies are getting so long now, I don&#39;t know where to begin or what I&#39;ve already said, so I&#39;ll leave it at that, at least for now.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Fricking economics will be the death of me&#33; <_<


Originally posted by Shredder+--> (Shredder)Marx on why the labor-value only corresponds with price through supply and demand. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm)[/b]

The first two things that I noticed about that chapter, were that it was written in 1847 and I could understand it without much effort. Which, all in all, suggests to me that Marx&#39;s "economic brain", at this time, was pretty underdeveloped.


Originally posted by [email protected]
We have just seen how the fluctuation of supply and demand always bring the price of a commodity back to its cost of production. The actual price of a commodity, indeed, stands always above or below the cost of production; but the rise and fall reciprocally balance each other, so that, within a certain period of time, if the ebbs and flows of the industry are reckoned up together, the commodities will be exchanged for one another in accordance with their cost of production. Their price is thus determined by their cost of production.

See, I don&#39;t see how this contradicts anything I&#39;ve said about supply and demand....that is, that, ultimately, labour and not supply and demand are what determine the price of a product.

As far as I can tell, from that chapter, Marx is saying that this fails to be the case when capitalism enters an economic crises of some kind. In other words, when overproduction occurs, then essentially, commodities are sold below their exchange value. Additionally, he also talks about scarcity leading to commodities selling above their exchange value....but Ricardo accounted for this; that is, when a product becomes "rare", the rules of labour created value cease to apply.

Aside from this, this piece is about capitalism; so I fail to see its relevance when we are discussing a communist economy. I mean, a communist economy will likely have its faults, and in that sense, critiques of it will be around....but those critiques will, I suspect, be radically different to critiques of the laws that govern capitalist economies.

After all, the "anarchic movement" really won&#39;t apply to a communist economy; because, in effect, without classes production will be able to be planned far more efficiently than it is now....indeed, I suspect the probability of (serious) overproduction and/or underproduction occurring in a communist economy would be virtually zero&#33;


Shredder
Anyway, elasticity of demand. I expect you&#39;ve seen a supply/demand curve graph. Elasticity refers to the slope of the lines.

At a given price, a person will want or not want a given commodity, hence demand. Now combine a number of individuals who will or will not buy at a given price, and instead of a boolean value, you get a number, determining how many people will buy it at that price--aggregate demand. Now you can graph this as a function where the X axis is the price and the Y axis is the aggregate demand. This line is the elasticity of demand. It is the demand curve. It measures the fact that changes in price affect different products differently. When the price of gas doubles, people still buy almost equal amounts of it. If the price of pizza doubles, people eat their veggies.

The criticism of all this, goes way over my head....I would PM ComradeRed and ask him if he has the time to explain whats wrong with this, but apparently, after "the hack", the PM system is down. Essentially, if I remember correctly, it boils down to something like this can&#39;t be measured past 10 (though what the fuck 10 represents, I don&#39;t know).

From your above example, then the reason why gas "demand" would stay the same, is, as we know, pretty obvious....it&#39;s the only thing that is widely used for its purpose.

Now, theoretically, a communist society, which would, occasionally, suffer from shortages, would be far better equipped to deal with these shortages. Indeed,I think during the early post-revolutionary era, we&#39;ll likely see a massive project to upgrade mass transportation to some kind of solar powered public train/tram system....this would, of course, offset any possible shortages of gas.

Stuff like this, as it happens, is already cost efficient. If it weren&#39;t for "the hack" fucking up the blogs, I&#39;d link you to a section of my blog where I talked about an Architect who is designing cities in China that are "interconnected". These cities are, essentially, the cities of the future; low maintenance, low energy use and so on....and all in all, they&#39;d be sufficient in a communist society to offset any possible scarcity.

We are likely already at a point where abundance is possible....which of course, makes communist society possible as well.

[anomaly]

One criticism I remember: demand cannot be measured. Levels of consumption can be measured, but if price were based on such fluctuations, it would be incessantly changing.

What it boils down to, of course, is that AS is right: labor ultimately determines price...well sort of.

An object has value if it has use-value. And that value is then determined by how much labor the object has in it. It gets rather difficult to measure, of course, with fun variables like &#39;dated labor&#39; thrown into the mix.

Then we can compare values of different commodities; hence, exchange value. And money is just another commodity, so price is determined by the exchange value of money and some other commodity.

All of this, though, goes back to labor.

ComradeRed, feel free to correct me if I&#39;ve fucked up at all.

So, Shredder, I don&#39;t quite know why a &#39;communist&#39; feels that &#39;supply and demand&#39; are relevant in the least.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:23 AM
Tell me whered your ideas come from? huh Goldman,Proudhon, pick any of the anarchists, or Marx,Engels, whatever, it doesnt matter, if none of those men or women existed where would you be? we dont know do we. But given that youd still be an anarchist, whatever that would mean without some of these people, there still would have been someONE or a group of people to put together the IDEA of Anarchism. The proletariat as a whole wasnt like how about anarchism guys.... Nope doesnt work that way.
Yawn.

You still don&#39;t understand that what&#39;s important is not for someone to be calling it "anarchism" (to follow your example) as for it to be anarchy&#33;

[anomaly]

Listen to dat closet primmie&#33; Shiiiiiit son&#33;

[LoneRed]

im not saying whether its important that a single person thought it up, i was saying it, as someone was denying the importance of such people.

I obviously realize the importance is the mass proletarian movement. but the point stands nonetheless

[Shredder]

The criticism of all this, goes way over my head.

Shnorry... that&#39;s only because I condensed it way too much which made it harder to read. Kind of like what ComradeRed sometimes does with his math & symbolic logic. You&#39;ll understand if you have time to go back and decode it, or google it, and read the following.


See, I don&#39;t see how this contradicts anything I&#39;ve said about supply and demand....that is, that, ultimately, labour and not supply and demand are what determine the price of a product.

The document is quite clear about supply and demand&#39;s role in changing the labor-value(Marx&#39;s &#39;value&#39;) into a price.

It&#39;s like that other guy said, "What it boils down to, of course, is that AS is right: labor ultimately determines price...", but he forgot to add "through supply and demand."

As I said before, the idea that the exchange-value or price of a good can correspond to the labor-value, without supply and demand, is evidently wrong.

Going back to examples, consider Sally and pizza. If she finds pizza for &#036;2 a box, it is very much worth that price to her and she will buy 4 of them. If pizza is &#036;4 a box, she considers it a fair deal and buys one. If it&#39;s &#036;6, she&#39;ll buy zero.

The numbers above describe what is called a demand curve. It shows that when prices go down, people want to buy more of it. I dunno how you are at math, I suck, but you know y = m * x + b. It&#39;s a line. Y is the price of pizza. X is the quantity of pizza. M is the slope, which represents the elasticity of demand (steeper = less elastic), and is the change in y divided by change in x. Don&#39;t worry about B, no one cares. The demand curve goes down and to the right.

The supply goes the other way. Since each unit produced doesn&#39;t cost the same amount as the last, Mario will freeze, box and ship 120 pizzas if he can sell them for &#036;2, 160 if he can sell them for &#036;4, and 200 if he can sell them for &#036;6. This line is on the same graph but goes up and to the right, because the higher the price, the more cash Mario can profitibly throw at ingredients and workers and that.

Once you have these two lines or curves, you have determined the equilibrium price. It is at the intersection of the two curves. That&#39;s the price the market gravitates them toward.

But if you ignore supply and demand, you ignore the slopes of both lines, which represent the differences in the increasing marginal costs of making 599 to 600 to 601 cars, and the difference in how many people want cars at &#036;25, 26, 27 thousand. Making, e.g., the 601st car may tend to be more expensive than making the 600th car, (see economies of scale, diseconomies of scale on google or wiki etc) which would mean it required more labor, yet the prices would stay the same despite this.

Anyway, I guess you don&#39;t care if you truly believe that we already have the means to produce super abundance. That&#39;s an article of faith. I define faith as the belief in something which is evidently wrong. "Evidently wrong" is my favorite term by far.

Now, the only reason I adhere to labor as the culprit underneath it all, is because the supply curve is related to costs of production, and I am still convinced that labor s the ultimate cause of all costs of production including the cost of labor&#39;s own production, though its presence is rather inconsequential since it does not play a role in our superior modern forms of analysis.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Shredder
I have, in the past, accused you of brain damage, delusions, or even psychotic paranoia.

Perhaps you have...and I just wasn&#39;t paying attention. :lol:


But you-- your accusations truly are quite bizarre and preposterous. Here, anyone who does not share your pure anarchist dream, you accuse of being a careerist who simply wants to exploit people for wealth, fame and/or power. If you actually sent that idea through the right neural channels, you&#39;d realize it&#39;s patently absurd. You should be able to instantly figure out that I&#39;m probably a white suburban American male who can use the internet without typing LOL all the time, and that therefore if I wanted power, fame or fortune out of any given circumstance, capitalism guarantees me better results, less effort, and less risk.

Yes, I think you would find a capitalist "career-path" more rewarding...given your swollen conceit about the "need" for people like you to "run things".

Your infatuation with "supply and demand" would fit into that as well.

On this board, we can&#39;t "always tell" when someone is getting ready to "flip" to the other side. But there are usually some ominous signs...one of them being a marked and obvious distrust of the masses.

That looks like the direction that you want to go in.

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