Questions About A Post Revolution World

[Si Pinto]

There are imperialists, nationalists, racists and habitual criminals all over the world.

These people will have children, who will be brought up in the ways of their parents, and they in turn will have children and so on, unless the revolution teaches them otherwise.

1 - Educating racism, greed, crime, capitalism etc, out of existence.

a) What provisions would be required? (by this I mean who are the 'teachers' going to be, will it be the job of people like ourselves to be the disciples of our vision? Surely a bourgeois teacher will remain a bourgeois teacher, even after the revolution? or will it be our role to educate a new level of teachers who will take communism to these people?

b) What would happen to dissenters?

c) Would there be a need to maintain a 'standing army' or police force or civilian militia, possibly for many years afterwards?

d) Would we also require some sort of penal code during this period?

2 - How would the revolution deal with indigenous people, who claim to have rights over lands going back many thousands of years, native Americans, African tribes, Australian/Polynesian tribes and so on?

I'm interested in your views, I do have other questions which will probably come out during a debate, but I think we have enough to start with here.

Over to you comrades!

[rouchambeau]

What do you think?

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:01 PM
What do you think?
Well ok I'll give it a go, but I was hoping for a response as my own thoughts on the matter are far from settled.

Given the fact that there would inevitably be dissenters, 'old guard' capitalists and nationalists who simply wouldn't accept a communist world and would do everything to undermine it, and also there would be people who just 'get a kick out of crime' no matter how equal everything is, then I think in the first few years following a revolution, a penal code and a civilian militia to enforce it would be required.

As for education, I think a whole new kind of teaching would be required, with none of the 'bourgeois' teachings, obviously no religious education, or biased historical teachings, and with the lessons aimed at promoting equality between different creeds, showing greed to be wrong, crime to be wrong, and providing a 'base' understanding for young people in what would be a very different world from that which their parents knew.

As for the indigenous peoples, I really don't know, maybe the answer would form part of a wider educational programme, with teachers becoming almost like missionaries. I'm really not sure, but I do think it's an issue that we (or our future replacements) face in a post revolution world.

There are people on this forum who believe that the revolution will be leaderless, and whilst I respect their reasons for having this belief, I don't see how it would fit in with the above scenario, which I see as inevitable.

[More Fire for the People]

Surely a bourgeois teacher will remain a bourgeois teacher, even after the revolution? or will it be our role to educate a new level of teachers who will take communism to these people?
I think a whole lot of teachers will crop up out of the revolution. These revolutionary teachers will probably replace the existing ones. However, teachers are proletarian and have a class interest in the revolution. Their only fault is that they spread false consciousness.


b) What would happen to dissenters?
Based upon the severity of the crime [racism, sexism, homophobia] the punishments could be community service, prison time, or even execution.


c) Would there be a need to maintain a 'standing army' or police force or civilian militia, possibly for many years afterwards?
No! No armies but civilian armies and only when neccessary!


d) Would we also require some sort of penal code during this period?
Yes, but a socialist, secular civil law system.


2 - How would the revolution deal with indigenous people, who claim to have rights over lands going back many thousands of years, native Americans, African tribes, Australian/Polynesian tribes and so on?
Grant them, immediately! All power to the native tribes. A socialist revolution must not trample on people in the name of 'industrialization' but lend a technological helping hand to the indigenous peoples.

[R_P_A_S]

I remember watching a 2pac documentary and he was like 17 years old and he was talking about how there should be classes in school about racism, police brutality, poverty and such things. amazing how he was only 17 and he was saying this things. damn shame he is gone. he was on his way.

I would love to see that.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 4 2006, 10:36 AM


a) What provisions would be required? (by this I mean who are the 'teachers' going to be, will it be the job of people like ourselves to be the disciples of our vision? Surely a bourgeois teacher will remain a bourgeois teacher, even after the revolution? or will it be our role to educate a new level of teachers who will take communism to these people?

b) What would happen to dissenters?


Teachers are not bourgeois, if somebody is a teacher before the revolution wants to stay a teacher after, more power to him/her.


Dissenters during the revolution and shortly after take the form of violont counter-revolutionaries and unfortunetly it will most likely get quite bloody.

In a socialist society, community service or jail time.

In a communist society, anyone who tries to exploit others for some kind of profit would only be shunned and shamed by his community, similar to the commune societys of Native Americans.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 5 2006, 08:29 AM

Teachers are not bourgeois, if somebody is a teacher before the revolution wants to stay a teacher after, more power to him/her.
No, I didn't mean all teachers are bourgeois, what I mean is a teacher who is bourgeois isn't likely to change there views just because they have a new curriculum to teach.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 4 2006, 02:36 AM

2 - How would the revolution deal with indigenous people, who claim to have rights over lands going back many thousands of years, native Americans, African tribes, Australian/Polynesian tribes and so on?

I say welcome them into your community, but that's as much as you can really do. You're certainly not going to give them capitalistic property rights over that land.

[Mesijs]

I think the most important thing, that has gone wrong so many times in history, is to have the people on your side, and do not act as a dictatorial elitist clique.

Therefore, do not fire teachers because you don't like them. Teaching isn't something politically minded. Maybe economy teachers should be helped because the economy works different, or committees who write history books should, unbiased, look at different sides of history. But do not put propagandist lackeys before the classes to indoctrinate the children. The children should learn independently, and should choose for socialism because it is the best, and not because they are forced. What would happen if the kids favourite teacher get fired and a state lackey replaces him? What would the kids think? What would the parents think? What would the people think. They would be afraid, they would listen suspicious to everything the teacher tells. This is clearly not the way.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 4 2006, 11:36 AM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 4 2006, 11:36 AM)There are imperialists, nationalists, racists and habitual criminals all over the world.

These people will have children, who will be brought up in the ways of their parents, and they in turn will have children and so on, unless the revolution teaches them otherwise.

1 - Educating racism, greed, crime, capitalism etc, out of existence.

a) What provisions would be required? (by this I mean who are the 'teachers' going to be, will it be the job of people like ourselves to be the disciples of our vision? Surely a bourgeois teacher will remain a bourgeois teacher, even after the revolution? or will it be our role to educate a new level of teachers who will take communism to these people?[/b]

Teachers teach what they are told to teach by the curiculum (spelling?). If they were told to teach something else then they would imo. At the moment capitalism and religion are told to them to be promoted and therefore the teachers do that. But if the people were telling the teachers to teach about communism then teachers would do that instead I think.

I don't think they'd cause problems at all. But I think you don't exactly need set teachers in communist society, because, like raising children, it could quite possibly be done collectively by society as a whole.

You say about educating children about equality in your second post, but I don't think this wouldbe needed because their whole existence would involve4 equality and I don't think that they'd really ever try and inforce inequality because they'd have never known it (shit...does that make sense? basically, because their enviroment is different to the current enviroment, they'd think in a different way to how people currently think).


Hopscotch [email protected] 4 2006, 05:32 PM

2 - How would the revolution deal with indigenous people, who claim to have rights over lands going back many thousands of years, native Americans, African tribes, Australian/Polynesian tribes and so on?
Grant them, immediately! All power to the native tribes. A socialist revolution must not trample on people in the name of 'industrialization' but lend a technological helping hand to the indigenous peoples.

Land rights? what?!

I don't agree at all with this. Surely the land should be for anyone who wants to live there. I don't see how native Americans demanding their land back is any different to, say, Britons demanding to keep their land for Britons only. This leads to racism, zenophobia and perhaps worse (think about Germany, Poland and Gdansk).

Land should be for anyone who wants to live there, not for certain races or nationalities.


The bit about a lending technological helping hand I agree with.



(I apologise for all the spelling mistakes)

[More Fire for the People]

I don't agree at all with this. Surely the land should be for anyone who wants to live there. I don't see how native Americans demanding their land back is any different to, say, Britons demanding to keep their land for Britons only. This leads to racism, zenophobia and perhaps worse (think about Germany, Poland and Gdansk).
Where the fuck are you pulling your moralism from? There is a whole fucking difference between the Native Americans and Britons. Native Americans are an oppressed nation(s) whose land was stolen from them. The Britons have lived in Briton for millenia and are not having their land stolen from them by non-Britons. I suppose you're all giddy about Israelis stealing Palestinian land too? Or should the Palestinians wait kindly in line to reclaim their land. Fucking asshole.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 5 2006, 06:12 PM

I don't agree at all with this. Surely the land should be for anyone who wants to live there. I don't see how native Americans demanding their land back is any different to, say, Britons demanding to keep their land for Britons only. This leads to racism, zenophobia and perhaps worse (think about Germany, Poland and Gdansk).
Where the fuck are you pulling your moralism from? There is a whole fucking difference between the Native Americans and Britons. Native Americans are an oppressed nation(s) whose land was stolen from them. The Britons have lived in Briton for millenia and are not having their land stolen from them by non-Britons. I suppose you're all giddy about Israelis stealing Palestinian land too? Or should the Palestinians wait kindly in line to reclaim their land. Fucking asshole.
Please stop this insulting, we are on a discussion forum. Try to act mature, do not use cussing words and react with arguments.

I do understand what Red Polak means. When a country would give land back to indigenous people, people from everywhere would claim their own piece of land. I think everywhere on the world there are people who want self-determination. It's OK to self determine, but land can't be given to people from hundreds of years ago.

By the way, where do you put the border yourself? It's ok for you to give back land to people from 200 or 500 years ago, but not from 700 years ago...?

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 5 2006, 07:12 PM

I don't agree at all with this. Surely the land should be for anyone who wants to live there. I don't see how native Americans demanding their land back is any different to, say, Britons demanding to keep their land for Britons only. This leads to racism, zenophobia and perhaps worse (think about Germany, Poland and Gdansk).
Where the fuck are you pulling your moralism from? There is a whole fucking difference between the Native Americans and Britons. Native Americans are an oppressed nation(s) whose land was stolen from them. The Britons have lived in Briton for millenia and are not having their land stolen from them by non-Britons. I suppose you're all giddy about Israelis stealing Palestinian land too? Or should the Palestinians wait kindly in line to reclaim their land. Fucking asshole.

what's the point of stopping one type of oppression just to allow another type?

I suppose you're all in favour of black nationalism etc because of what "whitey" has done too, yeah?

Why the fuck should ANYONE own the land? There should be no private property including land ownership under communism. Let people live where they wish, what kind of left wing society would kick out Americans from their homes in order to return it to native Americans? These people didn't oppress the natives, that was done years before they were even born, blaming them is like blaming us for Stalin or Pol Pot's crimes (and no, I'm not American).

[More Fire for the People]

what's the point of stopping one type of oppression just to allow another type?
Historical justice is not oppression.


I suppose you're all in favour of black nationalism etc because of what "whitey" has done too, yeah?
Yes. Oh-so-fucking hardily do I support non-racist black pride. It is in my belief that the cultural revolution under socialism will mainly be triggered by ethnic minorities.


Why the fuck should ANYONE own the land? There should be no private property including land ownership under communism.
I agree but under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat historical injustices must be repaid. Their must be an equalization of liberty, a creation of a society based upon positive liberty.


Let people live where they wish, what kind of left wing society would kick out Americans from their homes in order to return it to native Americans?
No. But the workers’ organizations should provide easy access to voluntary rellocation of Native Americans to their homelands. These organizations must also support reclaimation of the Native American ways of life [as long as they are non-sexist, non-racist, etc.]


These people didn't oppress the natives, that was done years before they were even born, blaming them is like blaming us for Stalin or Pol Pot's crimes (and no, I'm not American).
But the institutional racism, the white cultural hegemony, and the consequences of historical injustices still permeate society. If you find a child beaten on the street and no one stops for her, do you go with the crowd and not stop for her? No.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:31 PM
I do understand what Red Polak means. When a country would give land back to indigenous people, people from everywhere would claim their own piece of land. I think everywhere on the world there are people who want self-determination. It's OK to self determine, but land can't be given to people from hundreds of years ago.

By the way, where do you put the border yourself? It's ok for you to give back land to people from 200 or 500 years ago, but not from 700 years ago...?
exactly, nationalism = bad

and remember:
"The working men have no country." :hammer:

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Jul 5 2006, 07:52 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ Jul 5 2006, 07:52 PM)
what's the point of stopping one type of oppression just to allow another type?
Historical justice is not oppression.[/b]

historical justice?

I have never owned a slave, I have never kicked anyone off their land, why the hell should I, or, for that matter, anyone on earth be punished for the mistakes of previous whites?

We should be aiming for the emancipation of all races because all races are being oppressed by the ruling class.

you are advocating replacing one form of oppression with another.


Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 5 2006, 07:52 PM

Why the fuck should ANYONE own the land? There should be no private property including land ownership under communism.
I agree but under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat historical injustices must be repaid. Their must be an equalization of liberty, a creation of a society based upon positive liberty.

again I ask, why should people who've never done anything wrong be punished for the mistakes of previous generations?

I have never owned a slave, my parents have never owned slaves, their parents have never owned slaves, and their parents (my great-grandparents) have never owned slaves etc, my family have never been the ruling class as far as I'm aware for at least 200years - why punish whites in this situation?


Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 5 2006, 07:52 PM

Let people live where they wish, what kind of left wing society would kick out Americans from their homes in order to return it to native Americans?
No. But the workers’ organizations should provide easy access to voluntary rellocation of Native Americans to their homelands. These organizations must also support reclaimation of the Native American ways of life [as long as they are non-sexist, non-racist, etc.]

everyone should be able to live as they like, of course - but that includes both Americans and native Americans (as long as their ways of life do not infringe on another's)


Hopscotch [email protected] 5 2006, 07:52 PM

These people didn't oppress the natives, that was done years before they were even born, blaming them is like blaming us for Stalin or Pol Pot's crimes (and no, I'm not American).
But the institutional racism, the white cultural hegemony, and the consequences of historical injustices still permeate society. If you find a child beaten on the street and no one stops for her, do you go with the crowd and not stop for her? No.


I don't see how your analogy is at all relevent.

If the child was beaten up by brown haired people then I wouldn't hate all brown haired people and wish to beat them up in return.

And you haven't answered my point at all: Stalin claimed to be a communist - should modern communists be punished for his crimes? OF COURSE NOT!

But the institutional racism, the white cultural hegemony, and the consequences of historical injustices still permeate society

And when you do your "historical justice" rubbish, these things will permeate the new communist society only with a different race at the bottom instead.

we don't want to replace one form of oppression with another! we want to eliminate ALL oppression.

[More Fire for the People]

I have never owned a slave, I have never kicked anyone off their land, why the hell should I, or, for that matter, anyone on earth be punished for the mistakes of previous whites?
Because it is our task as the proletariat [and its working allies] to address the problems of transisting to communist society — this includes addressing the historical injustices against Native Americans, African Americans, and other ethnic minorities. Under your plan the surviving Jews from the Holocaust would be told to leave the concentration camp with no assistance. 'Can we have a homeland?' No. 'Can we have reperations?' No. 'Can we at least have health care?' Maybe.

You have no concept of racial oppression. You've never seen a reservation, a ghetto, a barrio, a slum. If you can sit in your cosy house on $100,000 income and think that there is no real reason that blacks live in the ghetto, than you're a fucking moron.


If the child was beaten up by brown haired people then I wouldn't hate all brown haired people and wish to beat them up in return.
Of course. This is not the goal of racially oppressed groups. Their goal is to be equal and to have a pride in thesmelves. Like every person deserves.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 5 2006, 08:25 PM

I have never owned a slave, I have never kicked anyone off their land, why the hell should I, or, for that matter, anyone on earth be punished for the mistakes of previous whites?
Because it is our task as the proletariat [and its working allies] to address the problems of transisting to communist society — this includes addressing the historical injustices against Native Americans, African Americans, and other ethnic minorities. Under your plan the surviving Jews from the Holocaust would be told to leave the concentration camp with no assistance. 'Can we have a homeland?' No. 'Can we have reperations?' No. 'Can we at least have health care?' Maybe.

You have no concept of racial oppression. You've never seen a reservation, a ghetto, a barrio, a slum. If you can sit in your cosy house on $100,000 income and think that there is no real reason that blacks live in the ghetto, than you're a fucking moron.


If the child was beaten up by brown haired people then I wouldn't hate all brown haired people and wish to beat them up in return.
Of course. This is not the goal of racially oppressed groups. Their goal is to be equal and to have a pride in thesmelves. Like every person deserves.
no they can't have a homeland.

If jews get a "homeland" then why not Christians, Mormons, Jedis, Sikhs, my little cult I just made up, homosexuals, blond-haired people etc etc etc etc

Those jews can live where the hell they want, just like everyone else should be able to live where the hell they want.

You realise homosexuals, political "dissidents", gyspies, slavs, the disabled, jahovahs witnesses etc were all persecuted by the nazis too right? maybe each of these groups deserves a "homeland" purely for them too? don't make me laugh.

I'm sure there are reasons that blacks live in ghettos in AMERICA (not so much in England and in Poland I see very few non-Poles ever), but it's simply another sign of capitalist oppression. There are many whites who live in trailor parks in America, who are poor as well - we're trying to overthrow capitalism for both whites and blacks.

[More Fire for the People]

Jews were not persecuted solely for their religion. They were persecuted for being an ethnic group (non-religious Jews were equally executed).


I'm sure there are reasons that blacks live in ghettos in AMERICA (not so much in England and in Poland I see very few non-Poles ever), but it's simply another sign of capitalist oppression. There are many whites who live in trailor parks in America, who are poor as well - we're trying to overthrow capitalism for both whites and blacks.
Yes, and those reasons have very much do to with the color of their skin. They were taken from their homeland and used for unpaid labour in America. Then when the ruling class could no longer use slavery they turned African Americans into an underclass of low paid wage-earners. Overthrowing the system requires a special focus on the ghettos, barrios, reservations, and slums.

[Raj Radical]

I would like to hear what kind of repearations that these certain groups would be given in a society with no private property.

Cultural identity and pride is fine , but giving reperations and preferential treatment to certain groups after the revolution because of things that happened throughout our regretable history brews the kind of hatred and dissociation that the ruling class used to keep the working class from uniting.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Si Pinto
As for the indigenous peoples, I really don't know, maybe the answer would form part of a wider educational programme, with teachers becoming almost like missionaries. I'm really not sure, but I do think it's an issue that we (or our future replacements) face in a post revolution world.
Yeah, that's just what Indigenous people around the world, more paternalism...

They'd be granted autonomy, self-determination and for the first time since colonisation freedom from a colonial state and free access to their land.

Stuff a bunch of non-Indigenous people telling Indigenous people what their needs are, and how to meet them.

[Hampton]

There are many whites who live in trailor parks in America, who are poor as well - we're trying to overthrow capitalism for both whites and blacks.

A trailor park and a ghetto are two diffrent things.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Man, I swear this is the only place you can find "leftists" who deny the need for national liberation of oppressed nations.

You can't correctly answer the class question until you address the national question.

[JC1]

A trailor park and a ghetto are two diffrent things.

Im from the R2W, the 2nd poorest postal code in Canada. It has the highest concetration of Ukrainian's in the country. Highest concentration if Filipino's and Amerindian's aswell, but tht is beside the point.

Tons of whites live in the ghetto.


Jews were not persecuted solely for their religion. They were persecuted for being an ethnic group (non-religious Jews were equally executed).

Straight up, I have been in so many street fights with chauvinist ukrainian's, and I'm not religous in the slighest.


No. But the workers’ organizations should provide easy access to voluntary rellocation of Native Americans to their homelands. These organizations must also support reclaimation of the Native American ways of life [as long as they are non-sexist, non-racist, etc.]


The Indian's I know dont want land, they want an education and an escape from poverty other then self-destruction through solvent's.

Land Claims should be repayed in cash, and paid in full.

[Si Pinto]

There are some really excellent posts here.

Reading them all I see that I've touched a bit of a 'raw nerve', which is exactly how I feel about it.

The question of land rights for indigenous peoples is one I've been throwing around my head for years.

Whichever way you look at it, it seems to clash with one or more of my fundamental beliefs.

a - No countries, no states, no boundaries

b - Equality and justice for everyone.

If we, having won our revolution, turn round to these people and say 'your not having any rights to any land' because it goes against the very heart of communist doctrine. They will just turn around and say ...."oh yeah, thanks society, great revolution that, different rules but the same decision".

On the other hand, as has been correctly pointed out on this thread, if we grant the land rights to these people, we are going against the basic logic of communism, and we are opening the door for other people to say "well I claim that land over there and we claim that island etc etc". We would be in danger of heading back down the road we just left.

One of the problems we have as communists is that there is no such thing as a 'working model' of what were trying to acheive, there is no-one with 'hands-on-experience' of communism, for us to use as an example, good or bad.

All we have are our communist theories and our basic knowledge of right from wrong.

Sometimes these clash, even when both answers make sense.

As I say, these are crucial questions that need sorting out because we have to have answers for people we want support from, who will ask these questions.

[More Fire for the People]

I have a couple comments on the land rights question. The 'land rights question' is based upon the national question. If the workers’ organizations defend Native American self-determination then it is entirely up to Native Americans to decide whether or not to redistribute and reclaim their land.

If Native Americans decide to reclaim their lands, which I believe is the most likely outcome, then we have to consider something about the Native American way of life. A lot of people are assuming that if Native Americans acquire their own land they'll turn it into private property — this isn't the case! The traditional Native American way of life dictates the communal ownernership of land and property.