Strategy for taking over the world.

[Avtomatov]

Why dont all the communist parties stop wasting money with campaigns that doesnt win any elections. Why dont we all focus our money on one country at a time, overwhelm it with propaganda, win elections, then set up a one party state and go onto the next one?

A big reason we dont win elections is because we dont have enough money for campaigning. If we focus our resources i think we could take one country at a time.

[Matty_UK]

Can't have communism just by changing the party imo

[Forward Union]

Because that idea is completely incompatable to real life.

[Avtomatov]

can you explain why?

[ComradeOm]

Read the Manifesto

[Avtomatov]

I have read it.

[More Fire for the People]

Better yet, read Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution? (http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm) or Daniel DeLeon’s work (http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm) with the same name. :)

[violencia.Proletariat]

You might have convinced a few people to do this in 1917, but there aren't that many reformists on this board.

[Avtomatov]

My plan would work alot faster then revolution. If revolution ever happens at all.

[Rawthentic]

Just because its your plan doesnt mean its gonna happen. How the hell can you say that yours can happen but revolution might not happen? And as violencia said, its reformism, how the hell are you gonna get communism through reform, by winning elections in each country and making that country communist? Absurd, you are no Marxist if you believe in this. Elections cannot defeat capitalism, revolution only can. You said that you've read the Manifesto, then why are you asking this?

[Avtomatov]

If the communists have a majority, and the people vote to amend the constitution and form a one party state, then thats what would happen.

Just because Marx says there will be a revolution doesnt meen there will be one.

[FriedFrog]

People won't vote in a party that advocates the one party state system because (shock horror) every "communist" one party state is a dictatorship.

Communism is more about the lack of a government and state. Or so I thought, anyway.

Im going to assume you're Leninist?

[Avtomatov]

Its called socialism. In socialism the state still exists. Socialism comes before Communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat comes before anarchy.

BTW a one party state is not the same as a dictatorship.

[Free Left]

Why dont all the communist parties stop wasting money with campaigns that doesnt win any elections. Why dont we all focus our money on one country at a time, overwhelm it with propaganda, win elections, then set up a one party state and go onto the next one?

A big reason we dont win elections is because we dont have enough money for campaigning. If we focus our resources i think we could take one country at a time.

Ahem, are you serious? Did you ever hear of the USSR? By any chance?
So you are saying that we brainwash a nation, set up a dictatorship and do the same to every single nation? :blink:

Do you see anything wrong with that?

[FriedFrog]

Its called socialism.

Ha ha, fair point :P


Socialism comes before Communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat comes before anarchy.

That all depends on who you talk to. From what we've seen in the past, the dictatorship of the proletariat has just resulted in the rule of the one party and not much else. Communism is never reached because individuals become power hungry.

I've lost faith in that system.

Complete and swift change is the only way to blow out the cob webs.

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 07:34 PM
Why dont all the communist parties stop wasting money with campaigns that doesnt win any elections. Why dont we all focus our money on one country at a time, overwhelm it with propaganda, win elections, then set up a one party state and go onto the next one?

A big reason we dont win elections is because we dont have enough money for campaigning. If we focus our resources i think we could take one country at a time.
Well, you started well. Communist parties should stop wasting money in elections. However, mere reformism of this process is not going to help us either. ;)

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 18 2006, 09:57 PM
Ahem, are you serious? Did you ever hear of the USSR? By any chance?
So you are saying that we brainwash a nation, set up a dictatorship and do the same to every single nation? :blink:

Do you see anything wrong with that?
I didnt say dictatorship, i said one party state. And you shouldnt use the word brainwash, you sound like one of those stupid rebels that thinks fascism means violence, and propaganda is always devious and misleading.

And also i dont think what im advocating is reformism. I think its more of a democratic revolution. Im not advocating the social democratic route. Im saying we should democratically change the entire system to a communist one. Not peice by peice, but all at once.

[Hit The North]

The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. There's no point concocting silly conspiratorial plans.


My plan would work alot faster then revolution.

Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts.

[FriedFrog]

The one party state is a stale idea that people associate with lack of freedom and despotic dictatorship.

And you can't tell the working class what they should and shouldn't think. Revolution is a movement of the masses. It needs no vanguard, it does not need to be told what to do.

[Avtomatov]

Its not going to happen any other way. People are hedonistic, democracy is hedonistic. People are getting more and more conservative all the time. Revolution is a bad word now. People dont even care about injustice and inequility of opportunity unless they can feal it physically. Sometimes a student or sick person will complain that they have to pay for it themselves, but once they are done paying for it and they are educated or healthy, then they wont care anymore. Its because they only care about themselves, they are hedonists and aristocrats.

BTW despot and dictator meen the same thing, i dont know why you need to say despotic dictatorship.

[FriedFrog]

Thats kind of a sweeping generlisation. People are only self absorbed because politics and the political system under capitalism does not engage them or make them feel like they were part of something.

People are turning away from politics because they see it as rich white men in suits doing boring things. Capitalism has done an awful good job at making people not care.

The only way to waken people from such a deep 'sleep' is to give them a rude awakening.

And if revolution AND the one party state are both bad, then I guess we're screwed :lol:


BTW despot and dictator meen the same thing, i dont know why you need to say despotic dictatorship.

Noted. I just thought I'd try and be all wordy and shit, but it doesnt work well with me :D

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:17 PM
I have read it.
Then read it again. Keep reading it until you understand why your suggestion is stupid.

[Herman]

And you can't tell the working class what they should and shouldn't think. Revolution is a movement of the masses. It needs no vanguard, it does not need to be told what to do.

I don't think Lenin ever said such rubbish. A vanguard is not meant to tell anyone what to do. It is supposed to be the guiding movement of the proletariat, the party that creates the class conciousness in the working class, the party that creates radicalism.

[Commie Rat]

The Pinky and the Brain, Brain,Brain. . .

[BobKKKindle$]

The title of this thread made me think that it might be rather amusing. I was correct in that assertion...dear Avtomat..where to begin comrade. You suggest that we win office through the legislative process by combining the efforts of all different communist parties around the globe. However, you must keep in mind that the prominent ideas and values of any society will be those of the ruling class, values and ideas that are orchestrated through Corporate influence over the media, not to mention the subconscious values instilled through products and consumerism. Socialism is viewed as 'dirty' and 'stalinist' under the present system. In order to change the system to one in which the proles can be emancipated, we have to instill a consciousness in the working class - a belief that an alternative exists. And that consciousness can only be revolutionary in nature. Socialists demand nothing less than the social ownership of the means of production and the abandonement of the wage labour system. This cannot be achieved through the electoral process, because the bourgeoisie would never accept such lesgislation. And I dont think encouraging all the communist parties of the world to launch a propaganda campaign will threaten the power and authority of bouregeois political parties. The accumulation of all our funds (for money is necessary to win any bourgeois election) will be nothing in comparison to corporate donations.

Socialism does not necessary require a party. It requires a state. Note the difference. The Concept of a worker's political party is a contradiction in terms, because the workers can only have their interests met when they themselves have control and ownership of the means of production, orchestrated through a series of soviets. This does not require a vanguard, dont worry.


A vanguard is not meant to tell anyone what to do. It is supposed to be the guiding movement of the proletariat

Oh, and what if the proletariat does not follow the direction in which you 'guide'? Please explain the difference between 'guiding the proletariat' and telling it what to do.


And you can't tell the working class what they should and shouldn't think. Revolution is a movement of the masses. It needs no vanguard, it does not need to be told what to do

I would fully agree with this. There is certainly no need for a group of bourgeois intellectuals to 'guide' the proletariat; they more than any one have nothing to lose but their chains and a world to win! Revolution is not about Das Kapital, its about creating a society run by the working class. The Revolution will not be successful if it is orchestrated through a tiny band of revolutionaries raiding the winter palace, it will only occur through a syndicalist mass labour movement; whereby the means of production are seized by the workers themselves. Not some hyped up vanguard. Just because Lenin said something, that does not make it true.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

they more than any one have nothing to lose but their chains and a world to win!

I find it amusing that a lot of Communists speak as if from above.

You say "they". That means you are not part of "they", yes? Because if that was the case, you would have said "we".

Wouldn't you?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 03:29 PM

And you can't tell the working class what they should and shouldn't think. Revolution is a movement of the masses. It needs no vanguard, it does not need to be told what to do

I would fully agree with this. There is certainly no need for a group of bourgeois intellectuals to 'guide' the proletariat; they more than any one have nothing to lose but their chains and a world to win! Revolution is not about Das Kapital, its about creating a society run by the working class. The Revolution will not be successful if it is orchestrated through a tiny band of revolutionaries raiding the winter palace, it will only occur through a syndicalist mass labour movement; whereby the means of production are seized by the workers themselves. Not some hyped up vanguard. Just because Lenin said something, that does not make it true.
I think you need to read some Gramsci and understand the difference between 'traditional' or professional intellectuals (those residing in academia and elsewhere) and 'organic' intellectuals who are the most politically advanced intellectual force within the working class - in other words, the vanguard.

Also take in some Russian history and then you'll know that power was taken by the soviets and that the Bolsheviks had to argue constantly within them that this was the necessary course of action. The soviets arose in a spontaneous fashion but they didn't assume their political role in such a spontaneous way. As collectives of workers there were a whole number of shades of opinion that could have won the day. The Mensheviks (within the soviets) were calling for the workers to support the bourgeois Provisional Government and rally behind the war effort. The Bolsheviks were calling for 'All Power to the Soviets!' In order to win the argument they needed to educate, agitate and organise within the soviet itself. This is why a vanguard (the organisation of the most class conscious workers) is crucial.

Quote by NWOG:


I find it amusing that a lot of Communists speak as if from above.

You say "they". That means you are not part of "they", yes? Because if that was the case, you would have said "we".

I think you've hit the nail on the head, comrade. This "straw man vanguard" which the autonomists and anarchists keep knocking down is predicated on the erroneous notion that it exists independently of the working class. It doesn't.

This might indeed say something about their own relationship to the class.

[Rawthentic]

very well said Citizen Zero, I think you might have gotten to him. I dont think that its stupid to ask these kinds of questions, hopefully it helps him to learn and get on track.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think you need to read some Gramsci and understand the difference between 'traditional' or professional intellectuals (those residing in academia and elsewhere) and 'organic' intellectuals who are the most politically advanced intellectual force within the working class - in other words, the vanguard.

I have read some excerpts from the Prison notebooks - I am not so blind as to read a book and go on to expouse all that it says as Dogma. I fully disagreee with Gramsci's analysis of intellectuals, indeed, his concept of Cultural hegemony is one of the few I value. I would like to remind you that lenin 'resided in Academia' when he was a student at Kazan university, and was immersed in the bourgeois intellectual culture when he was exiled to Switzerland. Less than 1000 people attended the first (and second, I think) internationals?! Immersed in the proletariat?! The lack of Contact between the Bolshevik party and the oppressed was shown by the Constituent Assembly elections. I feel that you are equating vanguardism with A Class Consciousness. While I certainly agree that it is necessary for the Proletariat to be 'shaken' out of their trade union consciousness and to be made aware of their importance and power as a class (a revolutionary consciousness), there is no reason why this must be conducted through a select band of 'organic' intellectuals, and there is certainly no necessity for a vanguard to 'guide' the revolution. The best way to instill a revolutionary consciousness if for the present system to undergo a crisis so that the values of society - the cultural hegemony operated by the ruling class that gramsci talks about - are questioned. After all, as a Marxist surely you will agree that ideology is determined by Material conditions?

Yes, I know Che said 'An Apple must be made to fall' or something along those lines. And, to be honest, I am not quite sure how to achieve a revolutionary consciousness without hoping for an economic collapse. I have some ideas regarding the importance of students and their possibility as a Revolutionary 'spark' for a mass movement that I am currently developing. Howevever - History has shown that if an elite emerges in conducting a revolution, then a power heirachy emerges. It is clear you are Leninist - how would you have conducted October differently.


Also take in some Russian history and then you'll know that power was taken by the soviets and that the Bolsheviks had to argue constantly within them that this was the necessary course of action.

How was it necessary? Why could the Soviets not have conducted the revolution independent of any Bourgeois Political party, and, eventually, a state economic planning apparatus? Please develop this point. I would hardly describe the October Revolution as a political movement by the Soviets to establish a worker's state - rather - it was a coup conducted by a small band of individuals.


I find it amusing that a lot of Communists speak as if from above.

I am 'above'. I am from the middle class. I could prosper under Capitalism if I chose to. But I dont chose to. Thats the reason I am a socialist.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:24 AM

I find it amusing that a lot of Communists speak as if from above.

I am 'above'. I am from the middle class. I could prosper under Capitalism if I chose to. But I dont chose to. Thats the reason I am a socialist.
Well said comrade. I think ( Im not really sure) that I am middle class, but my backgrooing is very proletarian since my parents are immigrants. It takes moral clarity to seek socialist thought once someone is middle class, since middle class values are instilled. Tell me, any comrade who would know, am I proletarian if my mother is a secretary at a high school and my dad works for an NGO? It wont affect my communist thought, but I just wanted to know.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:24 AM

I find it amusing that a lot of Communists speak as if from above.

I am 'above'. I am from the middle class. I could prosper under Capitalism if I chose to. But I dont chose to. Thats the reason I am a socialist.
Well said comrade. I think ( Im not really sure) that I am middle class, but my backgrooing is very proletarian since my parents are immigrants. It takes moral clarity to seek socialist thought once someone is middle class, since middle class values are instilled. Tell me, any comrade who would know, am I proletarian if my mother is a secretary at a high school and my dad works for an NGO? It wont affect my communist thought, but I just wanted to know.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:24 AM

I find it amusing that a lot of Communists speak as if from above.

I am 'above'. I am from the middle class. I could prosper under Capitalism if I chose to. But I dont chose to. Thats the reason I am a socialist.
Well said comrade. I think ( Im not really sure) that I am middle class, but my backgrooing is very proletarian since my parents are immigrants. It takes moral clarity to seek socialist thought once someone is middle class, since middle class values are instilled. Tell me, any comrade who would know, am I proletarian if my mother is a secretary at a high school and my dad works for an NGO? It wont affect my communist thought, but I just wanted to know.

[Avtomatov]

If a communist party is in power, then they can put heavy taxes on business to force the capitalists to sell it to the goverment for cheap. 200% would do it.

Some of you must know nothing about politics. You can take the meens of production democratically and legally.

[Avtomatov]

If a communist party is in power, then they can put heavy taxes on business to force the capitalists to sell it to the goverment for cheap. 200% would do it.

Some of you must know nothing about politics. You can take the meens of production democratically and legally.

[Avtomatov]

If a communist party is in power, then they can put heavy taxes on business to force the capitalists to sell it to the goverment for cheap. 200% would do it.

Some of you must know nothing about politics. You can take the meens of production democratically and legally.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:24 PM

I think you need to read some Gramsci and understand the difference between 'traditional' or professional intellectuals (those residing in academia and elsewhere) and 'organic' intellectuals who are the most politically advanced intellectual force within the working class - in other words, the vanguard.

I have read some excerpts from the Prison notebooks - I am not so blind as to read a book and go on to expouse all that it says as Dogma. I fully disagreee with Gramsci's analysis of intellectuals, indeed, his concept of Cultural hegemony is one of the few I value.








Well your first assertion is just patronising. I flagged up Gramsci's concept of organic intellectuals because it makes sense to me, not because it's a dogma. What doesn't make sense is to embrace Gramsci's ideas on hegemony and not see the need for the workers movement to develop its own hegemonic programme via its own intellectual development.


I would like to remind you that lenin 'resided in Academia' when he was a student at Kazan university, and was immersed in the bourgeois intellectual culture when he was exiled to Switzerland.

Lenin was a student? Big deal. At the same time he devoted his life to the revolutionary programme. Like Marx or Trotsky or Gramsci or any amount of talented individuals in the international communist movement, Lenin could easily have become a professional bourgeois academic with a nice comfy job in a university. He didn't. He risked his life and his livelyhood for the cause of working class emancipation.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about him being "immersed in the bourgeois intellectual culture when he was exiled to Switzerland". I don't recall him swanning around art galleries sipping champagne. You probably know more about this than me, so please explain.


I feel that you are equating vanguardism with A Class Consciousness.

Yes I am - in that the vanguard is the most class conscious section of the working class.


While I certainly agree that it is necessary for the Proletariat to be 'shaken' out of their trade union consciousness and to be made aware of their importance and power as a class (a revolutionary consciousness), there is no reason why this must be conducted through a select band of 'organic' intellectuals, and there is certainly no necessity for a vanguard to 'guide' the revolution.

Who will do it, if not the most advanced section of the class - the tooth fairy?


The best way to instill a revolutionary consciousness if for the present system to undergo a crisis so that the values of society - the cultural hegemony operated by the ruling class that gramsci talks about - are questioned. After all, as a Marxist surely you will agree that ideology is determined by Material conditions?


That seems to be a recipe for revolutionaries to sit with their thumbs up their arses waiting for the glorious day. Economic collapse does not in itself instill revolutionary consciousness. Economic collapse in Germany, for example, delivered a Nazi regime. Moreover, the hegemonic values of the ruling class are constantly open to question: for instance, when the State tries to roll back workers rights, cut public spending or embark on illegal wars in the Middle East. It's the job of revolutionaries to push the arguments and recruit people to our ideas, is it not? We have to build organisation and develop our ideas in the here and now. Otherwise when economic collapse does occur we'll be starting from scratch.


I have some ideas regarding the importance of students and their possibility as a Revolutionary 'spark' for a mass movement that I am currently developing.

A strange project for someone who 'fully disagrees' with the necessity for organic intellectuals!


How was it necessary? Why could the Soviets not have conducted the revolution independent of any Bourgeois Political party, and, eventually, a state economic planning apparatus? Please develop this point.

That was the point the Bolsheviks made with their slogan 'All power to the Soviets!' There was no need for the Russian workers to tie their fate to the bourgeois parties of Kerensky, etc. Or are you claiming that the Bolsheviks themselves were a bourgeois party?


I would hardly describe the October Revolution as a political movement by the Soviets to establish a worker's state - rather - it was a coup conducted by a small band of individuals.

So bourgeois historians would like us to believe. However, it would have been impossible without the active support of the Workers, peasants and soldiers soviets.


Howevever - History has shown that if an elite emerges in conducting a revolution, then a power heirachy emerges. It is clear you are Leninist - how would you have conducted October differently.

It's clear, in turn, that you are an anarchist. Without the Bolsheviks there would probably have been no October. The only option would have been to allow the mensheviks and Kerensky to assume power, to dismantle the soviets and return to normal bourgoise functioning.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:24 PM

I think you need to read some Gramsci and understand the difference between 'traditional' or professional intellectuals (those residing in academia and elsewhere) and 'organic' intellectuals who are the most politically advanced intellectual force within the working class - in other words, the vanguard.

I have read some excerpts from the Prison notebooks - I am not so blind as to read a book and go on to expouse all that it says as Dogma. I fully disagreee with Gramsci's analysis of intellectuals, indeed, his concept of Cultural hegemony is one of the few I value.








Well your first assertion is just patronising. I flagged up Gramsci's concept of organic intellectuals because it makes sense to me, not because it's a dogma. What doesn't make sense is to embrace Gramsci's ideas on hegemony and not see the need for the workers movement to develop its own hegemonic programme via its own intellectual development.


I would like to remind you that lenin 'resided in Academia' when he was a student at Kazan university, and was immersed in the bourgeois intellectual culture when he was exiled to Switzerland.

Lenin was a student? Big deal. At the same time he devoted his life to the revolutionary programme. Like Marx or Trotsky or Gramsci or any amount of talented individuals in the international communist movement, Lenin could easily have become a professional bourgeois academic with a nice comfy job in a university. He didn't. He risked his life and his livelyhood for the cause of working class emancipation.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about him being "immersed in the bourgeois intellectual culture when he was exiled to Switzerland". I don't recall him swanning around art galleries sipping champagne. You probably know more about this than me, so please explain.


I feel that you are equating vanguardism with A Class Consciousness.

Yes I am - in that the vanguard is the most class conscious section of the working class.


While I certainly agree that it is necessary for the Proletariat to be 'shaken' out of their trade union consciousness and to be made aware of their importance and power as a class (a revolutionary consciousness), there is no reason why this must be conducted through a select band of 'organic' intellectuals, and there is certainly no necessity for a vanguard to 'guide' the revolution.

Who will do it, if not the most advanced section of the class - the tooth fairy?


The best way to instill a revolutionary consciousness if for the present system to undergo a crisis so that the values of society - the cultural hegemony operated by the ruling class that gramsci talks about - are questioned. After all, as a Marxist surely you will agree that ideology is determined by Material conditions?


That seems to be a recipe for revolutionaries to sit with their thumbs up their arses waiting for the glorious day. Economic collapse does not in itself instill revolutionary consciousness. Economic collapse in Germany, for example, delivered a Nazi regime. Moreover, the hegemonic values of the ruling class are constantly open to question: for instance, when the State tries to roll back workers rights, cut public spending or embark on illegal wars in the Middle East. It's the job of revolutionaries to push the arguments and recruit people to our ideas, is it not? We have to build organisation and develop our ideas in the here and now. Otherwise when economic collapse does occur we'll be starting from scratch.


I have some ideas regarding the importance of students and their possibility as a Revolutionary 'spark' for a mass movement that I am currently developing.

A strange project for someone who 'fully disagrees' with the necessity for organic intellectuals!


How was it necessary? Why could the Soviets not have conducted the revolution independent of any Bourgeois Political party, and, eventually, a state economic planning apparatus? Please develop this point.

That was the point the Bolsheviks made with their slogan 'All power to the Soviets!' There was no need for the Russian workers to tie their fate to the bourgeois parties of Kerensky, etc. Or are you claiming that the Bolsheviks themselves were a bourgeois party?


I would hardly describe the October Revolution as a political movement by the Soviets to establish a worker's state - rather - it was a coup conducted by a small band of individuals.

So bourgeois historians would like us to believe. However, it would have been impossible without the active support of the Workers, peasants and soldiers soviets.


Howevever - History has shown that if an elite emerges in conducting a revolution, then a power heirachy emerges. It is clear you are Leninist - how would you have conducted October differently.

It's clear, in turn, that you are an anarchist. Without the Bolsheviks there would probably have been no October. The only option would have been to allow the mensheviks and Kerensky to assume power, to dismantle the soviets and return to normal bourgoise functioning.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:24 PM

I think you need to read some Gramsci and understand the difference between 'traditional' or professional intellectuals (those residing in academia and elsewhere) and 'organic' intellectuals who are the most politically advanced intellectual force within the working class - in other words, the vanguard.

I have read some excerpts from the Prison notebooks - I am not so blind as to read a book and go on to expouse all that it says as Dogma. I fully disagreee with Gramsci's analysis of intellectuals, indeed, his concept of Cultural hegemony is one of the few I value.








Well your first assertion is just patronising. I flagged up Gramsci's concept of organic intellectuals because it makes sense to me, not because it's a dogma. What doesn't make sense is to embrace Gramsci's ideas on hegemony and not see the need for the workers movement to develop its own hegemonic programme via its own intellectual development.


I would like to remind you that lenin 'resided in Academia' when he was a student at Kazan university, and was immersed in the bourgeois intellectual culture when he was exiled to Switzerland.

Lenin was a student? Big deal. At the same time he devoted his life to the revolutionary programme. Like Marx or Trotsky or Gramsci or any amount of talented individuals in the international communist movement, Lenin could easily have become a professional bourgeois academic with a nice comfy job in a university. He didn't. He risked his life and his livelyhood for the cause of working class emancipation.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about him being "immersed in the bourgeois intellectual culture when he was exiled to Switzerland". I don't recall him swanning around art galleries sipping champagne. You probably know more about this than me, so please explain.


I feel that you are equating vanguardism with A Class Consciousness.

Yes I am - in that the vanguard is the most class conscious section of the working class.


While I certainly agree that it is necessary for the Proletariat to be 'shaken' out of their trade union consciousness and to be made aware of their importance and power as a class (a revolutionary consciousness), there is no reason why this must be conducted through a select band of 'organic' intellectuals, and there is certainly no necessity for a vanguard to 'guide' the revolution.

Who will do it, if not the most advanced section of the class - the tooth fairy?


The best way to instill a revolutionary consciousness if for the present system to undergo a crisis so that the values of society - the cultural hegemony operated by the ruling class that gramsci talks about - are questioned. After all, as a Marxist surely you will agree that ideology is determined by Material conditions?


That seems to be a recipe for revolutionaries to sit with their thumbs up their arses waiting for the glorious day. Economic collapse does not in itself instill revolutionary consciousness. Economic collapse in Germany, for example, delivered a Nazi regime. Moreover, the hegemonic values of the ruling class are constantly open to question: for instance, when the State tries to roll back workers rights, cut public spending or embark on illegal wars in the Middle East. It's the job of revolutionaries to push the arguments and recruit people to our ideas, is it not? We have to build organisation and develop our ideas in the here and now. Otherwise when economic collapse does occur we'll be starting from scratch.


I have some ideas regarding the importance of students and their possibility as a Revolutionary 'spark' for a mass movement that I am currently developing.

A strange project for someone who 'fully disagrees' with the necessity for organic intellectuals!


How was it necessary? Why could the Soviets not have conducted the revolution independent of any Bourgeois Political party, and, eventually, a state economic planning apparatus? Please develop this point.

That was the point the Bolsheviks made with their slogan 'All power to the Soviets!' There was no need for the Russian workers to tie their fate to the bourgeois parties of Kerensky, etc. Or are you claiming that the Bolsheviks themselves were a bourgeois party?


I would hardly describe the October Revolution as a political movement by the Soviets to establish a worker's state - rather - it was a coup conducted by a small band of individuals.

So bourgeois historians would like us to believe. However, it would have been impossible without the active support of the Workers, peasants and soldiers soviets.


Howevever - History has shown that if an elite emerges in conducting a revolution, then a power heirachy emerges. It is clear you are Leninist - how would you have conducted October differently.

It's clear, in turn, that you are an anarchist. Without the Bolsheviks there would probably have been no October. The only option would have been to allow the mensheviks and Kerensky to assume power, to dismantle the soviets and return to normal bourgoise functioning.

[Commie Rat]

damn you foo for not commenting on my aptly places cartoon/comment.
Yes, it is the most productive post in this thread. Communim cannot be achived through bourgeiose politics. Go sign up for Labor/Democrats.

[Commie Rat]

damn you foo for not commenting on my aptly places cartoon/comment.
Yes, it is the most productive post in this thread. Communim cannot be achived through bourgeiose politics. Go sign up for Labor/Democrats.

[Commie Rat]

damn you foo for not commenting on my aptly places cartoon/comment.
Yes, it is the most productive post in this thread. Communim cannot be achived through bourgeiose politics. Go sign up for Labor/Democrats.

[Herman]

Oh, and what if the proletariat does not follow the direction in which you 'guide'? Please explain the difference between 'guiding the proletariat' and telling it what to do.

The job of the guiding vanguard is not telling the people what to do, but showing them the problems of the system and at the same time, explaining what really changes the system. Basically, to introduce class conciousness in the working class. Telling it what to do means commanding them, forcing them, what they have to do.


The lack of Contact between the Bolshevik party and the oppressed was shown by the Constituent Assembly elections.

Not true. In fact, the majority of the working class supported the Bolshevik Party. What is true, perhaps, is that most of the peasants (Which constituted around 70% of the population) supported the SRs. You must remember though, that the Bolsheviks were a working class party.


there is no reason why this must be conducted through a select band of 'organic' intellectuals, and there is certainly no necessity for a vanguard to 'guide' the revolution. The best way to instill a revolutionary consciousness if for the present system to undergo a crisis so that the values of society - the cultural hegemony operated by the ruling class that gramsci talks about - are questioned. After all, as a Marxist surely you will agree that ideology is determined by Material conditions?

So let's picture a worker in a developed country. Economic collapse happens. The worker will suddenly say, 'Wow! This system sucks! It isn't working! Down with the bourgeoisie!'. Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The same thing happened in 1929 and i no country did the workers suddenly become class consciouss. It was up to the Communist parties to tell the working class that economic collapse was due to the system.

[Herman]

Oh, and what if the proletariat does not follow the direction in which you 'guide'? Please explain the difference between 'guiding the proletariat' and telling it what to do.

The job of the guiding vanguard is not telling the people what to do, but showing them the problems of the system and at the same time, explaining what really changes the system. Basically, to introduce class conciousness in the working class. Telling it what to do means commanding them, forcing them, what they have to do.


The lack of Contact between the Bolshevik party and the oppressed was shown by the Constituent Assembly elections.

Not true. In fact, the majority of the working class supported the Bolshevik Party. What is true, perhaps, is that most of the peasants (Which constituted around 70% of the population) supported the SRs. You must remember though, that the Bolsheviks were a working class party.


there is no reason why this must be conducted through a select band of 'organic' intellectuals, and there is certainly no necessity for a vanguard to 'guide' the revolution. The best way to instill a revolutionary consciousness if for the present system to undergo a crisis so that the values of society - the cultural hegemony operated by the ruling class that gramsci talks about - are questioned. After all, as a Marxist surely you will agree that ideology is determined by Material conditions?

So let's picture a worker in a developed country. Economic collapse happens. The worker will suddenly say, 'Wow! This system sucks! It isn't working! Down with the bourgeoisie!'. Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The same thing happened in 1929 and i no country did the workers suddenly become class consciouss. It was up to the Communist parties to tell the working class that economic collapse was due to the system.

[Herman]

Oh, and what if the proletariat does not follow the direction in which you 'guide'? Please explain the difference between 'guiding the proletariat' and telling it what to do.

The job of the guiding vanguard is not telling the people what to do, but showing them the problems of the system and at the same time, explaining what really changes the system. Basically, to introduce class conciousness in the working class. Telling it what to do means commanding them, forcing them, what they have to do.


The lack of Contact between the Bolshevik party and the oppressed was shown by the Constituent Assembly elections.

Not true. In fact, the majority of the working class supported the Bolshevik Party. What is true, perhaps, is that most of the peasants (Which constituted around 70% of the population) supported the SRs. You must remember though, that the Bolsheviks were a working class party.


there is no reason why this must be conducted through a select band of 'organic' intellectuals, and there is certainly no necessity for a vanguard to 'guide' the revolution. The best way to instill a revolutionary consciousness if for the present system to undergo a crisis so that the values of society - the cultural hegemony operated by the ruling class that gramsci talks about - are questioned. After all, as a Marxist surely you will agree that ideology is determined by Material conditions?

So let's picture a worker in a developed country. Economic collapse happens. The worker will suddenly say, 'Wow! This system sucks! It isn't working! Down with the bourgeoisie!'. Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The same thing happened in 1929 and i no country did the workers suddenly become class consciouss. It was up to the Communist parties to tell the working class that economic collapse was due to the system.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Not true. In fact, the majority of the working class supported the Bolshevik Party.

Independent poll please?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Not true. In fact, the majority of the working class supported the Bolshevik Party.

Independent poll please?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Not true. In fact, the majority of the working class supported the Bolshevik Party.

Independent poll please?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

There is no need to "Overwhelm them with propaganda", we can just plainly state the facts. Just like Noam Chomsky. :) We're right anyway, why resort to distortion? If we are open and honest, we will win hearts and minds. If we are deceitful, we will only succeed in creating a bad feeling about the whole ideology of communism/socialism.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

There is no need to "Overwhelm them with propaganda", we can just plainly state the facts. Just like Noam Chomsky. :) We're right anyway, why resort to distortion? If we are open and honest, we will win hearts and minds. If we are deceitful, we will only succeed in creating a bad feeling about the whole ideology of communism/socialism.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

There is no need to "Overwhelm them with propaganda", we can just plainly state the facts. Just like Noam Chomsky. :) We're right anyway, why resort to distortion? If we are open and honest, we will win hearts and minds. If we are deceitful, we will only succeed in creating a bad feeling about the whole ideology of communism/socialism.

-Alex

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Hi mate.

What does your nick really mean?

At first I thought it was anti-palestinian. Because of the Israeli actions against palestinian olive trees and such.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Hi mate.

What does your nick really mean?

At first I thought it was anti-palestinian. Because of the Israeli actions against palestinian olive trees and such.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Hi mate.

What does your nick really mean?

At first I thought it was anti-palestinian. Because of the Israeli actions against palestinian olive trees and such.

[Delta]

I don't think taking a country over with propaganda would work too well. If the people aren't sufficiently educated and de-capitalized from their capitalist way of thinking of gouging each other for personal profit any sort of communism is going to be fairly rough going. And you would never be able to raise enough money to achieve this. The United States would match your dollars 10 to 1, and then if you still succeeded you'd be labeled a terrorist and the Marines would come in.

All this assuming that you even can get communism from elections, which I don't believe in. If you have enough people that are communist thinking in your country then why waste time with elections? Go straight to the revolution. If you don't have enough people that are willing for revolution, and yet somehow a communist party comes to power, it will probably abuse that power since the people aren't truly communist yet and wouldn't even know what to hold their party leaders accountable to.

However, I do think there are good things that can be done at the ballot box. Swinging the political climate to the left (such as they have in Europe with the parliamentary system) could perhaps make communist thought more mainstream, and much more of a possibility.

[Delta]

I don't think taking a country over with propaganda would work too well. If the people aren't sufficiently educated and de-capitalized from their capitalist way of thinking of gouging each other for personal profit any sort of communism is going to be fairly rough going. And you would never be able to raise enough money to achieve this. The United States would match your dollars 10 to 1, and then if you still succeeded you'd be labeled a terrorist and the Marines would come in.

All this assuming that you even can get communism from elections, which I don't believe in. If you have enough people that are communist thinking in your country then why waste time with elections? Go straight to the revolution. If you don't have enough people that are willing for revolution, and yet somehow a communist party comes to power, it will probably abuse that power since the people aren't truly communist yet and wouldn't even know what to hold their party leaders accountable to.

However, I do think there are good things that can be done at the ballot box. Swinging the political climate to the left (such as they have in Europe with the parliamentary system) could perhaps make communist thought more mainstream, and much more of a possibility.

[Delta]

I don't think taking a country over with propaganda would work too well. If the people aren't sufficiently educated and de-capitalized from their capitalist way of thinking of gouging each other for personal profit any sort of communism is going to be fairly rough going. And you would never be able to raise enough money to achieve this. The United States would match your dollars 10 to 1, and then if you still succeeded you'd be labeled a terrorist and the Marines would come in.

All this assuming that you even can get communism from elections, which I don't believe in. If you have enough people that are communist thinking in your country then why waste time with elections? Go straight to the revolution. If you don't have enough people that are willing for revolution, and yet somehow a communist party comes to power, it will probably abuse that power since the people aren't truly communist yet and wouldn't even know what to hold their party leaders accountable to.

However, I do think there are good things that can be done at the ballot box. Swinging the political climate to the left (such as they have in Europe with the parliamentary system) could perhaps make communist thought more mainstream, and much more of a possibility.

[Avtomatov]

Well the reason why democratic socialism is better then revolutionary socialism, is because when you do it democratically it is legal and the states wont have an excuse to stage a coup.

[Avtomatov]

Well the reason why democratic socialism is better then revolutionary socialism, is because when you do it democratically it is legal and the states wont have an excuse to stage a coup.

[Avtomatov]

Well the reason why democratic socialism is better then revolutionary socialism, is because when you do it democratically it is legal and the states wont have an excuse to stage a coup.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:03 PM
Well the reason why democratic socialism is better then revolutionary socialism, is because when you do it democratically it is legal and the states wont have an excuse to stage a coup.
They don't need an excuse. Look at Spain in the 30's or Chile in the 60's or the attempted coup in Venezuala this century.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:03 PM
Well the reason why democratic socialism is better then revolutionary socialism, is because when you do it democratically it is legal and the states wont have an excuse to stage a coup.
They don't need an excuse. Look at Spain in the 30's or Chile in the 60's or the attempted coup in Venezuala this century.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:03 PM
Well the reason why democratic socialism is better then revolutionary socialism, is because when you do it democratically it is legal and the states wont have an excuse to stage a coup.
They don't need an excuse. Look at Spain in the 30's or Chile in the 60's or the attempted coup in Venezuala this century.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Chile in the 60's

Perhaps you mean the 70's?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Chile in the 60's

Perhaps you mean the 70's?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Chile in the 60's

Perhaps you mean the 70's?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:18 PM

Chile in the 60's

Perhaps you mean the 70's?
I do indeed.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:18 PM

Chile in the 60's

Perhaps you mean the 70's?
I do indeed.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:18 PM

Chile in the 60's

Perhaps you mean the 70's?
I do indeed.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:03 PM
Well the reason why democratic socialism is better then revolutionary socialism, is because when you do it democratically it is legal and the states wont have an excuse to stage a coup.
‘Democratic’, i.e. parliamentary, socialism is an impossibility. Socialism cannot be built in parliaments for two reasons.
(1) Parliaments are institutions of the bourgeois revolution and can only carry out task in so far as they accomplish something for the bourgeoisie.
(2) Socialism must be built in the workplaces, in workers’ committees, congresses, unions, and other organic bodies of the proletariat, or otherwise it’s not socialism at all.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:03 PM
Well the reason why democratic socialism is better then revolutionary socialism, is because when you do it democratically it is legal and the states wont have an excuse to stage a coup.
‘Democratic’, i.e. parliamentary, socialism is an impossibility. Socialism cannot be built in parliaments for two reasons.
(1) Parliaments are institutions of the bourgeois revolution and can only carry out task in so far as they accomplish something for the bourgeoisie.
(2) Socialism must be built in the workplaces, in workers’ committees, congresses, unions, and other organic bodies of the proletariat, or otherwise it’s not socialism at all.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:03 PM
Well the reason why democratic socialism is better then revolutionary socialism, is because when you do it democratically it is legal and the states wont have an excuse to stage a coup.
‘Democratic’, i.e. parliamentary, socialism is an impossibility. Socialism cannot be built in parliaments for two reasons.
(1) Parliaments are institutions of the bourgeois revolution and can only carry out task in so far as they accomplish something for the bourgeoisie.
(2) Socialism must be built in the workplaces, in workers’ committees, congresses, unions, and other organic bodies of the proletariat, or otherwise it’s not socialism at all.

[BobKKKindle$]

So let's picture a worker in a developed country. Economic collapse happens. The worker will suddenly say, 'Wow! This system sucks! It isn't working! Down with the bourgeoisie!'. Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The same thing happened in 1929 and i no country did the workers suddenly become class consciouss. It was up to the Communist parties to tell the working class that economic collapse was due to the system.

You may mock this view, but it is closer to the truth than you might think. It was in the period following the Great depression that the German Communist Party (KPD) achieved the best election results, and in this period Street battles between right wing nationalists and Leftists occurred most fequently. Similairly, Leon Blum's popular Front came to power following 1929. On the opposite end of the economic spectrum, so to speak, the economic stagnation that occurred throughout the eastern bloc in the 80s was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet camp. Please note that I am not suggesting bourgeois election results signify a revolutionary consciousness, but this affirms the view that ideology is determined by material conditions.

To some extent, we are in agreement - I agree that some groups in Society are more conscious of the system than others, and hence are more suited to sparking a revolution. However, my personal model has the student population replacing the vanguard as the Revolutionary catylst. Take 1968 - Despite high levels of employmenet and a flourishing economy, French Students were so sensitive to the problems of the Capitalist Society that they were able to translate theory into action despite the presence of no adverse material conditions.

[Fawkes]

Umm... What do you mean dictatorship of the proletariat comes before Anarchy?