Trotskyism and Maoism

[Comrade Kurtz]

I must confess, because I am not a communist and I disavow many communist teachings, I know very little about the different ideologies. However, I would like to know more for argument purposes. Wikipedia isn't very helpful because a lot of their "explanations" reference other communist ideologies I know little about. So perhaps you all could be of some assistance in giving me some examples (hypothetical or real-life) of Trotskyism and Maoism put into play.

I know Trotskyism is based on the belief that a vanguard party should be created and thereby rule during and after the revolution. My biggest issue is that I have no concept for what a vanguard party really is or what it would look like as applied to 21st-century real life.

And I know Maoism is based on the belief that rather than the industrial proletariat leading the revolution it would be the peasentry. Again, I have a problem visualizing the difference and seeing how it is at all relevant to now.

Thanks for your help.

[Hiero]

The important part of Maoist ideology is the idea of cultural revolution. Mao and others in the PRC view the Soviet leadership after Stalin to be revisionist. The theory is that since class war continues in socialism, it continues in all areas, including culture and inside the party. Revisionist representing a bureaucracy and in some cases the local capitalist or imperialist capitalist will try to reform the socialist system. It will eventually leads to the collapse of Socialism when the Communist Party becomes weak in Marxism and the proletariat have lost alot of power to act.

So the cultural revolution planes to address this conflict. After revolution the cultural revolution begins, it's main goal is to educate all proletariat on Marxism-Leninism. It attacks any bourgeois elements in society, such as in culture, in the university, in government, in the party etc. For instance if a newspaper was producing articles promoting human nature instead of promoting Marxism the people would be required to remove that author.

The cultural revolutions basic aim is to make sure every proletariat is an active communist.

In regards to the peasant question it's just an extension of Leninism and looking at the 3rd world praticaly. The revolution in Russia was peasant proletariat alliance. In China it was the same, except the revolution started in the country side. It was practical to begin the revolution where the Japanese imperialist were the weakest. They took over easy targets and surrounded the major cities. In Nepal the Maoist are following the same path, and now the cities are becoming even more revolutionised as the Maoist control most of the country side.

Maoism is quite relevant now, because the 3rd world is the majority. It is so far the only realistic theory that can bring about 3rd world revolution and thus the destruction of imperialism.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Hiero, thank you very much.

[bezdomni]

I know Trotskyism is based on the belief that a vanguard party should be created and thereby rule during and after the revolution.
Stop listening to anarchists.

The vanguard of the proletariat is just the advanced section of the proletariat that leads the masses into revolution. It is not a small oligarchy that rules over the workers, but the means or the workers to take power. There would be no vanguard after the revolution (since the vanguard is only necessary in the beginning of proletariat insurrection), but a mass party of workers that democratically controls the means of production.

The theory of the permanent revolution was first developed by Trotsky as early as 1904. The permanent revolution, while accepting that the objective tasks facing the Russian workers were those of the bourgeois democratic revolution, nevertheless explained how in a backward country in the epoch of imperialism, the "national bourgeoisie" was inseparably linked to the remains of feudalism on the one hand and to imperialist capital on the other and was therefore completely unable to carry through any of its historical tasks. The rottenness of the bourgeois liberals, and their counterrevolutionary role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, was already observed by Marx and Engels. In his article The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution (1848), Marx writes:

"The German bourgeoisie has developed so slothfully, cravenly and slowly that at the moment when it menacingly faced feudalism and absolutism it saw itself menacingly faced by the proletariat and all factions of the burgers whose interests and ideas were akin to those of the proletariat. And it saw inimically arrayed not only a class behind it but all Europe before it. The Prussian bourgeoisie was not, as the French of 1789 had been, the class which represented the whole of modern society vis-a-vis the representatives of the old society, the monarchy and the nobility. It had sunk to the level of a kind of social estate, as distinctly opposed to the crown as to the people, eager to be in the opposition to both, irresolute against each of its opponents , taken severally, because it always saw both of them before or behind it; inclined to betray the people and compromise with the crowned representative of the old society because it itself already belonged to the old society; ". (K. Marx, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution, in MESW, vol. 1, p. 140-1.)

The bourgeoisie, Marx explains, did not come to power as a result of its own revolutionary exertions, but as a result of the movement of the masses in which it played no role: "The Prussian bourgeoisie was hurled to the height of state power, however not in the manner it had desired, by a peaceful bargain with the crown but by a revolution". (K. Marx, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution, MESW, vol. 1, p. 138.)

Even in the epoch of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Europe, Marx and Engels mercilessly unmasked the cowardly, counterrevolutionary role of the bourgeoisie, and emphasised the need for the workers to maintain a policy of complete class independence, not only from the bourgeois liberals, but also from the vacillating petty bourgeois democrats:

"The proletarian, or really revolutionary party," wrote Engels, "succeeded only very gradually in withdrawing the mass of the working people from the influence of the democrats whose tail they formed in the beginning of the revolution. But in due time the indecision weakness and cowardice of the democratic leaders did the rest, and it may now be said to be one of the principal results of the last years' convulsions, that wherever the working class is concentrated in anything like considerable masses, they are entirely freed from that democratic influence which led them into an endless series of blunders and misfortunes during 1848 and 1849." (F. Engels, Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany, MESW, vol. 1, p. 332.)

The situation is clearer still today. The national bourgeoisie in the colonial countries entered into the scene of history too late, when the world had already been divided up between a few imperialist powers. It was not able to play any progressive role and was born completely subordinated to its former colonial masters. The weak and degenerate bourgeoisie in Asia, Latin America and Africa is too dependent on foreign capital and imperialism, to carry society forward. It is tied with a thousand threads, not only to foreign capital, but with the class of landowners, with which it forms a reactionary bloc that represents a bulwark against progress. Whatever differences may exist between these elements are insignificant in comparison with the fear that unites them against the masses. Only the proletariat, allied with the poor peasants and urban poor, can solve the problems of society by taking power into its own hands, expropriating the imperialists and the bourgeoisie, and beginning the task of transforming society on socialist lines.

By setting itself at the head of the nation, leading the oppressed layers of society (urban and rural petty-bourgeoisie), the proletariat could take power and then carry through the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution (mainly the land reform and the unification and liberation of the country from foreign domination). However, once having come to power, the proletariat would not stop there but would start to implement socialist measures of expropriation of the capitalists. And as these tasks cannot be solved in one country alone, especially not in a backward country, this would be the beginning of the world revolution. Thus the revolution is "permanent" in two senses: because it starts with the bourgeois tasks and continues with the socialist ones, and because it starts in one country and continues at an international level.

The theory of the permanent revolution was the most complete answer to the reformist and class collaborationist position of the right wing of the Russian workers' movement, the Mensheviks. The two stage theory was developed by the Mensheviks as their perspective for the Russian revolution. It basically states that, since the tasks of the revolution are those of the national democratic bourgeois revolution, the leadership of the revolution must be taken by the national democratic bourgeoisie. For his part, Lenin agreed with Trotsky that the Russian Liberals could not carry out the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and that this task could only be carried out by the proletariat in alliance with the poor peasantry. Following in the footsteps of Marx, who had described the bourgeois "democratic party" as "far more dangerous to the workers than the previous liberals", Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counter-revolution.

"The bourgeoisie in the mass" he wrote in 1905, "will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, and against the people as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it 'recoils' from consistent democracy (and it is already recoiling from it!). (Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 98.)

What class, in Lenin's view, could lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution? "There remains 'the people', that is, the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling" (Ibid.)

In all of Lenin's speeches and writings, the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeois-democratic Liberals is stressed time and time again. However, up until 1917, he did not believe that the Russian workers would come to power before the socialist revolution in the West--a perspective that only Trotsky defended before 1917, when it was fully adopted by Lenin in his April theses. The correctness of the permanent revolution was triumphantly demonstrated by the October Revolution itself. The Russian working class--as Trotsky had predicted in 1904--came to power before the workers of Western Europe. They carried out all the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and immediately set about nationalising industry and passing over to the tasks of the socialist revolution. The bourgeoisie played an openly counterrevolutionary role, but was defeated by the workers in alliance with the poor peasants. The Bolsheviks then made a revolutionary appeal to the workers of the world to follow their example. Lenin knew very well that without the victory of the revolution in the advanced capitalist countries, especially Germany, the revolution could not survive isolated, especially in a backward country like Russia. What happened subsequently showed that this was absolutely correct. The setting up of the Third (Communist) International, the world party of socialist revolution, was the concrete manifestation of this perspective.

Had the Communist International remained firm on the positions of Lenin and Trotsky, the victory of the world revolution would have been ensured. Unfortunately, the Comintern's formative years coincided with the Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia, which had a disastrous effect on the Communist Parties of the entire world. The Stalinist bureaucracy, having acquired control in the Soviet Union developed a very conservative outlook. The theory that socialism can be built in one country--an abomination from the standpoint of Marx and Lenin--really reflected the mentality of the bureaucracy which had had enough of the storm and stress of revolution and sought to get on with the task of "building socialism in Russia". That is to say, they wanted to protect and expand their privileges and not "waste" the resources of the country in pursuing world revolution. On the other hand they feared that revolution in other countries could develop on healthy lines and pose a threat to their own domination in Russia, and therefore, at a certain stage, sought actively to prevent revolution elsewhere.

Instead of pursuing a revolutionary policy based on class independence, as Lenin had always advocated, they proposed an alliance of the Communist Parties with the "national progressive bourgeoisie" (and if there was not one easily at hand, they were quite prepared to invent it) to carry through the democratic revolution, and afterwards, later on, in the far distant future, when the country had developed a fully fledged capitalist economy, fight for socialism. This policy represented a complete break with Leninism and a return to the old discredited position of Menshevism--the theory of the "two stages".

[CombatLiberalism]

If you want to learn more about Maoism. Check out http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM and the links in my signature.

Maoists believe that capitalists can arise within the Communist Party itself and restore capitalism. So, Maoists call for continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat -- as Hiero described. Although the restoration of capitalism is a long process, in the Soviet Union, it is pinpointed to the death of Stalin in 1953. In China, the restoration can be pinpointed to the death of Mao in 1976. This restoration did not happen all at once, obviously. For example, there was a long struggle between the Maoists and capitalist roaders like Liu Shaoqi and Deng.

[rebelworker]

Sorry pants man, but Trotsky was totally in favor of one man management of the economy. He called for a militarisation of Labour under the controll of a small body of Party members directing the economy, even Lenin thought he went too far in public.

This was so even after voctory was assued in the civil war.

Trotsky was a hard core authoritarian. Of the managerial class variety.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:26 AM
Sorry pants man, but Trotsky was totally in favor of one man management of the economy. He called for a militarisation of Labour under the controll of a small body of Party members directing the economy, even Lenin thought he went too far in public.

This was so even after voctory was assued in the civil war.

Trotsky was a hard core authoritarian. Of the managerial class variety.
Blah Blah Blah Blah

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:33 PM

Blah Blah Blah Blah
Is this all you have to say in defence of your great leader?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by rebelworker+Sep 4 2006, 02:36 PM--> (rebelworker @ Sep 4 2006, 02:36 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 02:33 PM

Blah Blah Blah Blah
Is this all you have to say in defence of your great leader? [/b]
Basically. I don't have to justify Stalin's deportations of the Chechens, Kazakis, Jews, and other Asiatic cultures to his wonderful gulags. I don't have to justify his wonderful oppression of revolutionary leaders. I don't have to justify his connection with Nazi Germany in any way. I don't have to justify his support for a Jewish "state". I can live with a simple "Trotsky was calling for civil war at a time when the Nazis were preparing for a massive invasion.", but I can't live with any of those facts. Lenin started a revolution when the Germans were penetrating deep in Russian territory, taking the important Baltic port city of Riga and killing over 2 million soldiers in one summer, does that make him a "German collaborationist"?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Trotskyism is an ideology that expands on leninism. Tortsky himself was a leninist and like all leninists believed that in order for a revolution to occur there would be a need for a vanguard party.A vanguard party is a party which is at the center or wants to be at the center of revolutionary action. It organizes the revolution and runs along the principles of democratic centralism which states that all party officials must be democratically elected and that all party decisions must be democratically discussed within the party. All of what I just said also applies to Maoism because maoism is also an expansion leninism and what I've explained so far is a summary of leninism.

Trotskyism and Maoism differ in this respect. Trotskyists are very critical of Stalin and the USSR. Trotskyists beleive that it was a degenerate worker's state. That means that while stalinization was fucked up, the workers still had the power to revolt and overthrow stalin and make things right. Trotskyists also strongly believe that in order for socialism to succeed it needs to happen all over the world or at least in the 1st world. Unlike other branches of communism, there has never been a party in power which claims to be trotskyist.

Maoism is also another ideology that is an expansion of leninism. There main unique differences are that they believe that in order to go from socialism to communism, a cultural revolution is necessary in which everything is always challenged. Maoists also believe that stalinism wasn't so bad and that Stalin saved Russia.

I hope that all made sense.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:26 AM
Sorry pants man, but Trotsky was totally in favor of one man management of the economy. He called for a militarisation of Labour under the controll of a small body of Party members directing the economy, even Lenin thought he went too far in public.

This was so even after voctory was assued in the civil war.

Trotsky was a hard core authoritarian. Of the managerial class variety.
What kind of bullshit is that? Take a look at just about anything Trotsky wrote in the thirties. Take a look at the the Left opposition.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 4 2006, 03:00 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 4 2006, 03:00 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 06:26 AM
Sorry pants man, but Trotsky was totally in favor of one man management of the economy. He called for a militarisation of Labour under the controll of a small body of Party members directing the economy, even Lenin thought he went too far in public.

This was so even after voctory was assued in the civil war.

Trotsky was a hard core authoritarian. Of the managerial class variety.
What kind of bullshit is that? Take a look at just about anything Trotsky wrote in the thirties. Take a look at the the Left opposition. [/b]
Why would I bother to read what he wrote in the thirties, when I can read what he said and ACTUALLY DID in the twenties?

The Left Oposition was just a shadow of the workers oposition within the party years earlier. Trotsky stood firmly with the rest of the Bolshevik leadership AGAINST the workers in and out of the party.

He helped to dismantel or make irrelevant the factory committies, which were the true expression of the revolutionary workers. By supporting Burocratic committies made up of mostly intelectual party functionaries above workers self management, and again, he was strongly in favor of the "militarisation of labour" and one man managment of factories.

These things are by definition, support of a burocratic class above the self activity of the working class. He may have talked alot of shit years later to justify his actions and try and "win back" the party hacks, but the facts are the facts, Trotsky was no friend of the average revolutionary worker.

The left oposition and all resistance to Stalinism failed, because the disempowerment or total supresssion of the revolutionary elements of the working class (real workers, not intelecutal party functionaries) was already a done deal by 1920-21. Trotsky did Stalins work for him.

Democratic centralism in a party is all fine and dandy, if you want to build a party with domineering leadership and no real internal democracy, but its bullshit if your talking about substituting the Party for the revolutionary workers, something that Trotsky defenitly stood for.

Vangurad Parties and the people who advicate them (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao) are well meaning (in most cases) but inherintly anti worker and anti revolutionary ideologies.

[rouchambeau]

Stop listening to anarchists.

I agree. Anarchists never have and never will have anything good or useful to say. If any one of them tells you to do someting just ignore it. Whatever they say, it's wrong just because it's an anarchist that says it.

[Comrade Kurtz]

See, this is the biggest problem with communist intellectuals: They have a hard time understanding that there are those who differ with them and as a result try to silence voices of opposition. It seems to be the case for most of them.

[Just Dave]

I'm a trotskyist and I know a few anarchists, and to be honest we agree on about 85% of all issues. The problem with anarchists from what I see is that they think that the working classes will revolt without any kind of encouragement or organisation. I just find that hard to agree with; I think it's really far-fetched

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 07:45 PM
See, this is the biggest problem with communist intellectuals: They have a hard time understanding that there are those who differ with them and as a result try to silence voices of opposition. It seems to be the case for most of them.
Oh. That is so true about us. :D You seriously need to get the Medal of Honor from Ronald Reagan for such a statement against godless communism.

[citizen_snips]

bah

[citizen_snips]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 07:45 PM
See, this is the biggest problem with communist intellectuals: They have a hard time understanding that there are those who differ with them and as a result try to silence voices of opposition. It seems to be the case for most of them.
SILENCE!

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by RedDali+Sep 4 2006, 08:04 PM--> (RedDali @ Sep 4 2006, 08:04 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 07:45 PM
See, this is the biggest problem with communist intellectuals: They have a hard time understanding that there are those who differ with them and as a result try to silence voices of opposition. It seems to be the case for most of them.
Oh. That is so true about us. :D You seriously need to get the Medal of Honor from Ronald Reagan for such a statement against godless communism. [/b]
In all seriousness, that's been visible in most leaders. Maoism, according to what I've heard, demands complete conformity to the communist cause with no dissention (cultural revolution). Stalinism obviously had similar policies. And don't even get me started with Castro.

It's only recently that socialists have begun allowing opposition. I look to leaders like Chavez for a good example of this.

EDIT: When I said "communist intellectuals", I was referring to individuals like Mao and Trotsky who have significantly contributed to different schools of Marxist theory. It wasn't a dig on *most* of the people on here.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by rebelworker+Sep 4 2006, 04:31 PM--> (rebelworker @ Sep 4 2006, 04:31 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:00 PM

[email protected] 4 2006, 06:26 AM
Sorry pants man, but Trotsky was totally in favor of one man management of the economy. He called for a militarisation of Labour under the controll of a small body of Party members directing the economy, even Lenin thought he went too far in public.

This was so even after voctory was assued in the civil war.

Trotsky was a hard core authoritarian. Of the managerial class variety.
What kind of bullshit is that? Take a look at just about anything Trotsky wrote in the thirties. Take a look at the the Left opposition.
Why would I bother to read what he wrote in the thirties, when I can read what he said and ACTUALLY DID in the twenties?

The Left Oposition was just a shadow of the workers oposition within the party years earlier. Trotsky stood firmly with the rest of the Bolshevik leadership AGAINST the workers in and out of the party.

He helped to dismantel or make irrelevant the factory committies, which were the true expression of the revolutionary workers. By supporting Burocratic committies made up of mostly intelectual party functionaries above workers self management, and again, he was strongly in favor of the "militarisation of labour" and one man managment of factories.

These things are by definition, support of a burocratic class above the self activity of the working class. He may have talked alot of shit years later to justify his actions and try and "win back" the party hacks, but the facts are the facts, Trotsky was no friend of the average revolutionary worker.

The left oposition and all resistance to Stalinism failed, because the disempowerment or total supresssion of the revolutionary elements of the working class (real workers, not intelecutal party functionaries) was already a done deal by 1920-21. Trotsky did Stalins work for him.

Democratic centralism in a party is all fine and dandy, if you want to build a party with domineering leadership and no real internal democracy, but its bullshit if your talking about substituting the Party for the revolutionary workers, something that Trotsky defenitly stood for.

Vangurad Parties and the people who advicate them (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao) are well meaning (in most cases) but inherintly anti worker and anti revolutionary ideologies.[/b]
That's false. It's easy to criticize but take into account what the situation was like. The USSR was the first socialist state and was surrounded by imperialist capitalist states ready to attack them. The White Army was still alive and reactionaries were strong. The USSR need to establish it's self and become stable or collapse like the Paris Commune. That is why early on Trotsky advocated some of the things he did, however everyone knows that as soon as the USSR was established with Lenin in power Trotsky started advocating worker control of everything. The whole point of the Left opposition was to increase worker control of power. After he was expelled from the USSR , trotsky did everything he could to bring democracy and bring the USSR back on track, and that cost him his life!

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:24 PM

That's false. It's easy to criticize but take into account what the situation was like. The USSR was the first socialist state and was surrounded by imperialist capitalist states ready to attack them. The White Army was still alive and reactionaries were strong. The USSR need to establish it's self and become stable or collapse like the Paris Commune. That is why early on Trotsky advocated some of the things he did, however everyone knows that as soon as the USSR was established with Lenin in power Trotsky started advocating worker control of everything. The whole point of the Left opposition was to increase worker control of power. After he was expelled from the USSR , trotsky did everything he could to bring democracy and bring the USSR back on track, and that cost him his life!
Im sorry but this is just not the case.

Its obvious that you genuinely support workers controll, like I did when I was in a Trot group.

But apon educating myself its clear that Trotsky, in Practice, did not. Nit even in the slightest.

Again, mabey Trotsky came to realise the mistakes he had made (I dont think so), and its possible that he greatly changed his position once he saw for himself the dangers of the system he had worked so hard to create, but the fact is tha man supported a very counter revolutionary practice when the Russian Revolution was in ts most important stages.

Period.

I really recomend, from one comrade to another, that you read some "non Trotskyist" accounts, written by revolutionaries, of the russian revolution.

The Best I can suggest is The Bolsheviks and Workers Control (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html).

It cuts throught the sectarian bullshit and looks at the meat and potatoes of communism, workers power, and the Party burocracy.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 07:45 PM
See, this is the biggest problem with communist intellectuals: They have a hard time understanding that there are those who differ with them and as a result try to silence voices of opposition. It seems to be the case for most of them.
No. Did you read the way he defined Trotskyism? It was absolute anarchist bullshit.

Tell me where Trotsky or Lenin calls for the "rule of the vanguard party after the revolution".

[Vargha Poralli]

Im sorry but this is just not the case.

Its obvious that you genuinely support workers controll, like I did when I was in a Trot group.

But apon educating myself its clear that Trotsky, in Practice, did not. Nit even in the slightest.

Again, mabey Trotsky came to realise the mistakes he had made (I dont think so), and its possible that he greatly changed his position once he saw for himself the dangers of the system he had worked so hard to create, but the fact is tha man supported a very counter revolutionary practice when the Russian Revolution was in ts most important stages.

Period.

I really recomend, from one comrade to another, that you read some "non Trotskyist" accounts, written by revolutionaries, of the russian revolution.

The Best I can suggest is The Bolsheviks and Workers Control.

It cuts throught the sectarian bullshit and looks at the meat and potatoes of communism, workers power, and the Party burocracy.


Yeah. Thats true.Trotsky should have never put down krondstat rebellion if you are referring to that. he should'nt even built red army in the first place. all the anarchist wud have been have beeen happier if october revolution has been sucessfully put down by white army and its imperial collaborators.

As for as Maoism is concerned it really usefull for all 3rd world underdeveloped countries where urban proletariat is a minority or non-existence even now. Nepal is good example. cultural revolution is good in idea and it could have given a good result in practice if mao's wife and her faction (gang of four) had not used it to play their power politics against other CPC leaders(Zhou,Deng and others).

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:24 PM
After he was expelled from the USSR , trotsky did everything he could to bring democracy and bring the USSR back on track, and that cost him his life!
He died for our sins? :rolleyes:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by rebelworker+Sep 4 2006, 11:54 PM--> (rebelworker @ Sep 4 2006, 11:54 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 10:24 PM

That's false. It's easy to criticize but take into account what the situation was like. The USSR was the first socialist state and was surrounded by imperialist capitalist states ready to attack them. The White Army was still alive and reactionaries were strong. The USSR need to establish it's self and become stable or collapse like the Paris Commune. That is why early on Trotsky advocated some of the things he did, however everyone knows that as soon as the USSR was established with Lenin in power Trotsky started advocating worker control of everything. The whole point of the Left opposition was to increase worker control of power. After he was expelled from the USSR , trotsky did everything he could to bring democracy and bring the USSR back on track, and that cost him his life!
Im sorry but this is just not the case.

Its obvious that you genuinely support workers controll, like I did when I was in a Trot group.

But apon educating myself its clear that Trotsky, in Practice, did not. Nit even in the slightest.

Again, mabey Trotsky came to realise the mistakes he had made (I dont think so), and its possible that he greatly changed his position once he saw for himself the dangers of the system he had worked so hard to create, but the fact is tha man supported a very counter revolutionary practice when the Russian Revolution was in ts most important stages.

Period.

I really recomend, from one comrade to another, that you read some "non Trotskyist" accounts, written by revolutionaries, of the russian revolution.

The Best I can suggest is The Bolsheviks and Workers Control (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html).

It cuts throught the sectarian bullshit and looks at the meat and potatoes of communism, workers power, and the Party burocracy. [/b]
You see it your way, I see it mine. I disagree. No Trotskyist has a little trotsky shrine in which they worshp him as a god who never made a mistake. Obviously he made mistakes and obviously he wasn't perfect. However, his theory is the best and makes the most sense. Leninism makes the most sense to me, and trotskyism is just an expansion on it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Sep 5 2006, 02:55 PM--> (Matthijs @ Sep 5 2006, 02:55 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 10:24 PM
After he was expelled from the USSR , trotsky did everything he could to bring democracy and bring the USSR back on track, and that cost him his life!
He died for our sins? :rolleyes: [/b]
:lol: yes mathijs, he is our lord and saviour :lol:

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:24 PM
After he was expelled from the USSR , trotsky did everything he could to bring democracy and bring the USSR back on track, and that cost him his life!
You are completely ignoring the important efforts of the Left and Worker's Opposition. Trotsky wasn't the only one on the ground.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Yeah but that wasn't the arguement. The arguement was weither Trotsky supported one-man rule.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Oops. I am sorry.

[redwinter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:06 AM

As for as Maoism is concerned it really usefull for all 3rd world underdeveloped countries where urban proletariat is a minority or non-existence even now. Nepal is good example. cultural revolution is good in idea and it could have given a good result in practice if mao's wife and her faction (gang of four) had not used it to play their power politics against other CPC leaders(Zhou,Deng and others).
Actually, I'd argue that it's not only useful for the oppressed nations, but also for imperialist nations. Mao's contribution of the theory of class struggle under socialism and the notion of the development of a new bourgeoisie within the Communist Party itself while in power, as well as the concrete experiences of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution -- these are all crucial ideas that contemporary Marxists have to wrangle with. People can choose to consciously ignore them, but the history of socialism and the struggle for communism shows that revolutionaries really do need to be taking up the question of how the dictatorship of the proletariat can hold power and not become a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie all over again, just with the guise of socialism like China today or the USSR pre-collapse.

I'm interested in hearing what was so bad about Jiang Qing (Mao's wife), Zhang Chunqiao, and the rest of the Gang of Four. I mean, they were all leaders during the Cultural Revolution in various fields (Jiang Qing was making breakthroughs in the field of the arts - just watch some of the revolutionary model operas like the Red Detachment of Women! This shit is some of the best art that our class has come up with throughout history!) And importantly, they recognized the principle of class struggle under socialism and actively carried it out, ultimately sacrificing their lives (spending decades in prison until they died -- Jiang Qing in particular under very suspicious circumstances).

Reactionary dogs like Deng Xiaopeng and Zhou Enlai needed to be denounced, and unfortunately they won the power struggle after Mao's death...which is why we now have sweatshops, Walmart and slavery in so-called "socialist" (revisionist) China.

[Comrade Marcel]

It's too bad rebelworker, "left"henry, etc have no example of his/her brands of anacho/libertarian-communism or Trotskyism or whatever individual brand of "liberation" they prefer for themsevles to spout, so we could see an example of the ultimate pure perfect and can not make any mistakes well building socialist/communist society in action.

The USSR in the Stalin era, China in the years of Mao, Cuba, etc. all have their achievments and mistakes visible. The one's who attack, i.e. Trots, the circle-A-jerkers, et al have nothing to show but the mistakes of others.

That says something in itself.

It's so easier said than done, it's easier to criticize than organize. But, like Hardial Bains said, "true communists will show their colours through deeds".

[Hiero]

In all seriousness, that's been visible in most leaders. Maoism, according to what I've heard, demands complete conformity to the communist cause with no dissention (cultural revolution). Stalinism obviously had similar policies. And don't even get me started with Castro.

Why should we allow there to be opposition to proletarait revolution? You can only achieve socialism and maintian it through the dictatorship of the proletariat. The only opposition to socialism is bourgeois opposition.

[CombatLiberalism]

There was mention of art produced in Maoist China. The art that was produced in Maoist China was part of the broader proletarian assault on the bourgeois, liberal, and CIA position on art. It was part of the "all round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie." There is an excellent article on the Maoist line in art: http://irtr.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=890

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:49 AM

In all seriousness, that's been visible in most leaders. Maoism, according to what I've heard, demands complete conformity to the communist cause with no dissention (cultural revolution). Stalinism obviously had similar policies. And don't even get me started with Castro.

Why should we allow there to be opposition to proletarait revolution? You can only achieve socialism and maintian it through the dictatorship of the proletariat. The only opposition to socialism is bourgeois opposition.
See, this is one thing that makes me sick about some of you all. You get angry at the fascists like Mussolini for annialating the worker's movement in Italy and yet you want to do the same thing with the capitalists. Is capitalism an evil? Sure, but as Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Besides, opposition parties are cornerstone to democracy. The one thing about capitalism which I think exposes a weakness on our end of things is that in a capitalist society, you're free to retreat from society and start a small, socialist commune (look at all the attempts in America). Most of you wouldn't extend the same grace to the capitalists; truth be told, I probably wouldn't either because of the nature of their ideology. But I would allow them to voice their opposition without facing imprisonment or inhumane treatment. When that happens, like Castro, we become as bad as the bourgeois we fought so hard to defeat.

[bezdomni]

Communists are not against "opposition parties" or "opposition blocks" as long as it is a proletariat opposition. Hell, both Mao and Trotsky were in the minority every now and then (Trotsky moreso than Mao). It is the class outlook of the opposition that matters.

I think everybody will grant that Trotsky was a Communist and had a proletariat class outlook. If his outlook was correct is the subject of many debates, but he wasn't a bourgeois apologist by any means - nor was the left opposition as a whole.

It is not the concept of "opposition" to the party leadership that we have a problem with - we welcome it. Maoists take their line of "It's Right to Rebel" seriously, and the RCP takes self-criticisms whenever they realize they fucked up in some manner or another. It is not like the communist party is some monolothic totalitarian organization that will force you to believe 2+2=5 if they accidently fuck up in a newspaper article or something.

The dictatorship of the proletariat should not tolerate BOURGEOIS opposition, but worker's opposition is not only tolerated by crucial to the survival of revolutionary socialism and the transition into communism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:34 PM
....but worker's opposition is not only tolerated by crucial to the survival of revolutionary socialism and the transition into communism.

Absolutely. Indeed, back in the day, there actually was a faction of the Bolshevik Party called the Worker's Opposition....and there was also another group called the Worker's Group.

I wonder what happened to them....

[Comrade Kurtz]

Why shouldn't the former bourgeois be allowed to oppose the communist government? We as leftists are allowed to oppose capitalism! It seems like a double standard. Hence, why I hate communism.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 6 2006, 11:23 PM
Why shouldn't the former bourgeois be allowed to oppose the communist government? We as leftists are allowed to oppose capitalism! It seems like a double standard. Hence, why I hate communism.
Because the bourgeoisie are the oppressors!

Leftists are only "allowed" to oppose capitalism to a certain capacity. I know the US has laws baring people who espouse revolutionary ideas from holing any office, and many southern states have laws that bar atheists from holding any public office.

Futhermore, capitalism is only freedom for the bourgeoisie. If voting actually changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

The masses should oppose the bourgeoisie because the aim is a classless society...we can't very well get to a classless society if the socialist phase of society is constantly plagued by bourgeois reaction.

We will never have progress if we allow reaction. However, it is crucial to understand that reaction and opposition are two different things.

[redwinter]

It looks like a lot of people are struggling over the question of dissent under socialism, especially dissent coming from the bourgeoisie. Is it something to be attacked and persecuted, or something to be allowed?

I'm sure many people have heard the phrase, "You can kill a revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution." Well, you can say with equal merit, "You can kill a counter-revolution, but you can't kill the counter-revolution." Why are these statements true?

It's because both the revolutionary (communist) struggle led by the proletariat and the counter-revolutionary struggle led by the bourgeoisie have a MATERIAL basis. The solution to the problem of class struggle and bourgeois lines emerging during socialism, both from the remnants of the "old" bourgeoisie that is left over but also from the "new" bourgeois forces that emerge IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY ITSELF, is not to simply persecute or incarcerate (or kill!) those who have even openly bourgeois or counter-revolutionary theory. The key thing that is going to help us in the struggle for communism, especially under socialism, is free line struggle - one important form of class struggle - both within the party and in society generally.

This topic in particular - on tolerating and even in some cases encouraging dissent under socialism - is one that I believe Bob Avakian has contributed much to, beyond even Mao. There will be times of fierce struggle - for instance during imperialist invasion of a socialist country - when dissent is going to have to be kept on a short leash. In other circumstances, the people under the leadership of the proletariat and its party will have more freedom to allow dissent and even encourage and foster it to make sure to hear the various complaints of different sections of the masses, and help root out revisionism and capitalist restoration going on in the leadership of society.

Bob Avakian made a point (I think in the book "Marxism and the Call of the Future") that went something along the lines of... the proletariat is going to have to make some tough choices - some resources that could go directly to helping the masses, like building hospitals and schools, are gonna have to go towards publishing materials we don't agree with - even some reactionary shit! But the tougher choice is that in the end, if we DON'T do this, we're not going to be encouraging line struggle and we're gonna end up with capitalist restoration, so building that shit would amount to little in the long run.


And as far as being "allowed" to oppose the government...that's not really a right anyone can take away from anyone else, unless we develop some way to read minds. You either oppose it or you don't in your own mind, due to your worldview and ideology. Now, I think it's a good thing if reactionaries are open about their views so we can struggle with them over it - and maybe even learn some shortcomings we're having in the process. It's a lot better than these people calling themselves socialists while putting out the same old bourgeois shit under a different guise.

[Messiah]

It is not like the communist party is some monolothic totalitarian organization that will force you to believe 2+2=5 if they accidently fuck up in a newspaper article or something.

That's the problem though, that's exactly what it became. Look, without going into details I think we can all agree some major, jaor problems and digression happened in China, in the USSR, just about everywhere where there was a "Communist Party". And this crimes, because that's what they were, have given a huge black eye to communism as a whole.

And I find it sad that even in this thread, people go out of their way to refer to the anarchists as just complete idiots. It's really hard to take your talk of "we allow and encourage dissent" seriously, when in the same breathe you're berating fellow revolutionaries in just completely childish, and vulgar terms.

You're right, true communists will show themselves through their deeds. But the sad reality is, for the most part, all we've seen is a lot of incredible totalitarian, authoritarian and criminal acts as comitted by supposed "communists" and "Communist Parties". And the attitude a lot of you take really is not inspiring me to think any of that has changed.

[Hiero]

You can't create communism, without annihilating the capitalist class.

[Messiah]

I'm not talking about the capitalist class. I'm talking about violence and coercion used against fellow revolutionaries simply because they disagree with the orthodox interpretation of the state of things as decided on by "the Party". We've seen in this thread alone how intolerant some people are (to their own comrades), and frankly if this is the stunning example of "Party tolerance" then...wow.

[Comrade Kurtz]

It doesn't matter. They should be able to voice their opinion just the same as we are able to right now. Should they be able to start their own capitalist enterprises? Absolutely not! But part of allowing opposition, even bourgeois opposition is learning to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with you and because of that, you had better hold true to your ideology or risk getting voted out of office; hence why democracy is the vanguard of freedom.

My guess is that once socialism is established, it will take a horrible leader for someone dissenting to get voted into office. But that option should be available.

Messiah makes a great point about anarchists too. Politically, communists are among the most bigoted and intolerant people around.

[chaz171]

Maoism is quite relevant now, because the 3rd world is the majority. It is so far the only realistic theory that can bring about 3rd world revolution and thus the destruction of imperialism.

Well, here is where the debate begins. The shining path has been fighting in Peru for almost 40 years. they had taken large chunks on peru and garnered support of the people. the extreme maoist views were never very popular with the peruvians because it was insensitive to the indigenous beliefs. Public stonings didn't help the cause either.

there is socialism in action in many countries. i know every maoist will debate this.

according to extreme maoists, the rest of the world is wrong and might as well be nazis.

but I'd like to ask where has maoism succeeded? it hasn't even lasted in china...

[gilhyle]

With the exception of the concpet of Permanent Revolution, Trotsky's key ideas did not get represented inthis thread, heres a quick rough go at it:

1. Permanent Revolution: where the bourgeoisie are weak, as they are in many imperialised countries, it is necessary to continue on from the fight of national independence to the fight for workers power. This is continued by the working class party fighting for leadership of the revolutionary forces withn the nationalist revolutionary process under a new socialist programme.

2. Transitional Demands: In the imperialist epoch, a period of wars and revolutions and repeated crises, the working class repeatedly places demands on capitalist society which cannot be satisfied under capitalist social relations. Although 'reformist' or 'nationalist' in character, such 'transitional demands' can become the basis for revolutionaries to take a leading role in the class struggle within capitalist society.

3. United Front not Popular Front: Because imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, revolutionaries must never abandon the organisation of a revolutionary party under democratic centralist organisation; they must always maintain their independence and only work in an alliance with others which allows them to retain this independent part organisation.

4. Rank and File Movement: The trade union movement is subject to a strong tendency to the development of bureaucratic layers. this must be fought by building rank and file movements that fight for democratic reform of the way trade unions operate.

5. A Propaganda International: The independent organisation of a revolutionary party must extend to the building of a revolutionary international, even when the revolutionary forces available are only a small minority able to engage only in propaganda and exemplary agitation and with no mass influence.

6. Bureacratic Degeneration: where revolutions happen in particular countries which lack the material basis for the transition to socialism, they are subject to an underlying tendency to degenerate which occurs in the form of bureaucracies taking over the workers states and using them to promote their own material priviledge Even degernated revolutions must be defended from capitalism and the fight for reform of a degenerated revolution is subordinate to its defence against capitalism.

7 Entrisim: The imperialist epoch is characterised by the widespread dominance of social democratic parties. These parties are the focus of the hopes of the working class. they should not be ignored and cannot be bypassed. They can be dealt with by two key tactics: critical support for social democratic election candidates, placing demands on them which reveal their political corruption and by 'entrism' into social democratic parties, arguing within their party organisations for united front platofrms of transitional demands around which the most militant members can be won to principled positions and, ultimately, to the revolutionary party.

[bezdomni]

It doesn't matter.
Class doesn't matter?

Some materialist analysis you have.


They should be able to voice their opinion just the same as we are able to right now.
We are only able to "voice our opinion" because they are scared shitless of us. We have the numbers and we have the power - they don't. The working masses have every right to suppress reactionary, ruling class ideas.

The bourgeoisie exploit us, they oppress us and they waste our lives. We have nothing to be greatful for to them. They can all rot. They could not exist without us, we can exist without them.


Should they be able to start their own capitalist enterprises? Absolutely not!
If you let them form capitalist opposition parties and if you let them propagate the masses with bourgeois thought...they will eventually regain property and steal the revolution away from us.

You also have to realize that during a communist revolution, the bourgeois capitalists become MORE reactionary, and if they were to seize the means of production again - we would be in an even poorer shape than we were to begin with.

They wouldn't let us revolt twice.


But part of allowing opposition, even bourgeois opposition is learning to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with you and because of that, you had better hold true to your ideology or risk getting voted out of office; hence why democracy is the vanguard of freedom.
:o You used the v-word!

The problem with bourgeois opposition is the fact that it is reactionary and not in the material interests of the masses. Worker's opposition is revolutionary and should be encouraged; even worker's opposition against the party.

Honestly, why do you spend so much time defending the bourgeoisie. They don't give a fuck about workers, why should workers give a fuck about them.


My guess is that once socialism is established, it will take a horrible leader for someone dissenting to get voted into office.
And your guess would be entirely wrong.

If a person is incompetent, they get voted out. If they do good, they stay in.

It's called democracy.


Politically, communists are among the most bigoted and intolerant people around.
Bigoted? Hardly.

Intolerant? Yes. We are intolerant of bourgeois apologism, we are intolerant of misogyny, we are intolerant of homophobia, we are intolerant of fascism and we are intolerant of capitalism.

Thanks for noticing.


And I find it sad that even in this thread, people go out of their way to refer to the anarchists as just complete idiots.
I don't have to go out of my way. :P

Kidding. I think a lot of anarchists have piss-poor politics, but there are some I respect quite a bit.


It's really hard to take your talk of "we allow and encourage dissent" seriously, when in the same breathe you're berating fellow revolutionaries in just completely childish, and vulgar terms.
:lol:

And you're acting like anarchists are innocent little angels who are "berated" by the big bad leninists.

Go read one of Nachie's posts. :P

[Comrade Kurtz]

SovietPants, you have misunderstood me but in the process you exposed exactly what my point was. You claim that the bourgeois are in the minority and that they are scared of the prolitariat. I agree. However, if this was true, there would be no problem in letting them continue to have their voice in society (express dissenting opinions) because not only is their cause in the minority, the revolution will be so grand that no one will want to go back...

Do you see the hypocrisy here? You automatically undermine your own revolutionary efforts by asserting that the people will gravitate back towards the bourgeois even if socialism/communism is reached. Truth me told, if the majority wants reactionary exploitation by the bourgeois, give it to them. Forcing a revolution down someone's throat doesn't do anyone any good. It's the same basis as chistian evangelism, which unfortunately isn't always followed: offer the information and if a person gravitates towards it, great. If they don't, it's not your role or place to force it upon them because they don't want it.

In a sense, your ideas of how the revolution should be accomplished are just as reactionary as many on the Christian right. You're saying that, "Us few who believe in communism are right about this issue and so even if you don't believe or agree, we're doing what is best for you."

If there is a consensus that socialism/communism is the best method, which both of us seem to believe there is/will be, allowing the bourgeois the ability to keep spreading their nonsense will not hurt the worker's movement.

As Hugo Chavez said, "If the dogs are barking, it means we're working."

[bezdomni]

I am not saying the ex-bourgeoisie shouldn't be allowed to exist in society or oppose socialism. They can hold what ideas they want; as long as they don't organize, don't try to create private property or actively work against the people's will to establish socialism - they can do what the fuck they want.

Revolutions in the past have failed because there wasn't enough struggle against bourgeois reaction.

Anyway, most of them would likely die during a revolutionary situation. It's not like they are going to give us the means of production without a fight. :P

[rebelworker]

The fact is anarchists rightly distrust leninists, because in the past you have built authoritarian States that have lead to the destruction of the progressive and revolutionary movements in society and replaced them with burocrats.

The fact that you havnt even trued to aknowledge me and AS's point about oposition even within the Bolshevik party shows how ignorant you are of your own political liniage.

There are suystemic problems with the vangurad/ party model. There are serrious problems with Trotskist and maoist visions of revolution.

That is if your proletarian.

Or a peasant.

Who dose that leave to vanguard the revolution?
Not the opressed masses.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 12:35 AM
I am not saying the ex-bourgeoisie shouldn't be allowed to exist in society or oppose socialism. They can hold what ideas they want; as long as they don't organize, don't try to create private property or actively work against the people's will to establish socialism - they can do what the fuck they want.

Revolutions in the past have failed because there wasn't enough struggle against bourgeois reaction.

Anyway, most of them would likely die during a revolutionary situation. It's not like they are going to give us the means of production without a fight. :P
Violent revolution is a red herring, not to mention ineffective. A prolitariat revolution has never been executed and stayed true to its Marxist, grassroot principles. A bad track record? You bet! Democracy and the electoral process, as corrupt as it may be, is the only way to achieve socialism adaquately.

It's also good to know you believe in freedom of speech post-revolution, even for dissenters like the former bourgeois because your boy Trotsky and Mao surely didn't. In fact, every "communist" ruler that has come to power has found some unique way of dealing with people who spoke out against the revolution, be it keeping them as political prisoners or executing them. But it's highly encouraging to see communists become a little more humane and disavow some of their idols' beliefs.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 8 2006, 12:21 AM
SovietPants, you have misunderstood me but in the process you exposed exactly what my point was. You claim that the bourgeois are in the minority and that they are scared of the prolitariat. I agree. However, if this was true, there would be no problem in letting them continue to have their voice in society (express dissenting opinions) because not only is their cause in the minority, the revolution will be so grand that no one will want to go back...

Do you see the hypocrisy here? You automatically undermine your own revolutionary efforts by asserting that the people will gravitate back towards the bourgeois even if socialism/communism is reached. Truth me told, if the majority wants reactionary exploitation by the bourgeois, give it to them. Forcing a revolution down someone's throat doesn't do anyone any good. It's the same basis as chistian evangelism, which unfortunately isn't always followed: offer the information and if a person gravitates towards it, great. If they don't, it's not your role or place to force it upon them because they don't want it.

In a sense, your ideas of how the revolution should be accomplished are just as reactionary as many on the Christian right. You're saying that, "Us few who believe in communism are right about this issue and so even if you don't believe or agree, we're doing what is best for you."

If there is a consensus that socialism/communism is the best method, which both of us seem to believe there is/will be, allowing the bourgeois the ability to keep spreading their nonsense will not hurt the worker's movement.

As Hugo Chavez said, "If the dogs are barking, it means we're working."
"You claim that the bourgeois are in the minority and that they are scared of the prolitariat. I agree. However, if this was true, there would be no problem in letting them continue to have their voice in society (express dissenting opinions) because not only is their cause in the minority, the revolution will be so grand that no one will want to go back..."

I like to remember a country in which the bourgeoisie were heavily respected even after a somewhat revolutionary action was taken against them. They laid silently dormant, working amongst covert terrorist groups, spreading propaganda, working with imperial juggernauts, and producing general economic havoc for the social welfare policies that were being undertaken in that country. These actions lead to the eventual establishment of a millitary dictatorship, that forced millions back into the dark age of primitive education, terrible housing, no set minimum wage, end of all social safety-nets, while arresting and killing off thousands of people. Have you ever heard of Chile?

Even if this minority class has it's main assets seized, it doesn't mean that it is completely seperated from instruments of political and economic power. The nobility didn't disappear after the king was executed in France. Many former landowners were able to agitate peasants to create mass revolts, former aristocratic generals rose up in the northwestren part of the country, and various sections of that class entered the revolutionary bureaucracy. England, Austria, and Prussia invaded in response to the French revolution. If we are going to be met with similiar cruel malice of the bourgeoisie (and we have), we need to be more violent in order to ensure that we are the dominant species (pardon my social darwinism :) ).

"Truth me told, if the majority wants reactionary exploitation by the bourgeois, give it to them."

If we did that, every revolutionary effort in the history of the world would be compromised. Through this assumption, homosexuals would be sent to prison, abortion would be illegal, and African Americans would still be enslaved and segregated from current American society. If you want to witness something reactionary, go to Germany in 1933 and witness who the Germans voted for.

"Forcing a revolution down someone's throat doesn't do anyone any good."

Well, you are certainly not a revolutionologist.

"You're saying that, "Us few who believe in communism are right about this issue and so even if you don't believe or agree, we're doing what is best for you."

That is basically what I am saying.

"Violent revolution is a red herring, not to mention ineffective."

All revolutions are inherently violent. Even Ghandi's "peaceful revolution", lead to ethnic conflict that killed millions of hindus and muslims.

[Messiah]

And you're acting like anarchists are innocent little angels who are "berated" by the big bad leninists.

Go read one of Nachie's posts.

No, I am not acting like anything. If the topic had been intolerant anarchists, of which there many, by critique would have been just as ardent. It just so happens we were talking about the supposed tolerance the Communist Party was to show, while at the same time people were practically going out of their way to take pot shots at people who, by every reasonable assesment, should be regarded as political allies.

It's absolutley pathetic, and a sad, sad joke that anyone who takes such an vehment orthodox stance on their politics start preaching to anyone about "tolerance". If people wonder why their local chapter of the Communist Party, or Anarchist Collective is only frequented by the same 15 people it's probably because some of your members have the precise attitude we have seen here.

I can appreciate that we have ideological differences, that's fine. I am an anarchist, and no I don't always agree with communists and marxists and what have you. On some points we differ enourmously. But we have far more in common than we do have oppossed. But judging by some of the posts here you'd think we were all pissing in your cereal every god damn morning.

So to all of you, all of us: grow the fuck up. A key part of the revolution will be getting along with people. So stop pretending like your favorite theorist or politico was a Christ figure, or that the rest of us are clinically retarded. You got your views, we got ours -- fine! Let's find some common ground and take it from there. And if we can't even do that then maybe we deserve to be in the god damn hole that we're in.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by Comrade Kurtz
You're saying that, "Us few who believe in communism are right about this issue and so even if you don't believe or agree, we're doing what is best for you."

That is basically what I am saying.

Who the hell are you to decide what's best? You treat the working class like its too stupid to think for itself. Educate the working class, and they'll realize what's best for them.

[CombatLiberalism]

Most anarchists, trotskyists, etc. are love amerikkka white chauvinists, they are no allies of mine. They are counter-revolutionaries who agitate on behalf of the labor aristocracy. They are enemies, closer to fascism than communism.

[RedCommieBear]

They are enemies, closer to fascism than communism.

Just because someone doesn't worship the same early 20th century politician as you doesn't make someone a fascist.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 9 2006, 01:27 AM

They are enemies, closer to fascism than communism.

Just because someone doesn't worship the same early 20th century politician as you doesn't make someone a fascist.
QFT. Seems like some people still fail to grasp the basic marxist definition of fascism. :rolleyes:

[CombatLiberalism]

Just because someone doesn't worship the same early 20th century politician as you doesn't make someone a fascist.

True. However, I never said it did. In fact, certain anarchist influenced writers, such as J. Sakai, are more Maoist than most of those claiming to be "Maoist" in the first world. Maoism isn't about emotional connection to a historical figure or leader. It is about revolutionary materialist science. The first world approaches ideology the same way they approach TV shows; it is the mentality of the channel flipper: if you don't like anarchism, then there is Trotskyism, if you don't like that, then there is crypto-Trotskyism, if you don't like that, there is fascism, and so on. Marx was entirely correct for criticizing the persynality cult under advanced capitalism; this is not to say that persynality cults can't be a step up for those societies emerging out of feudalism -- writing a letter to Stalin is a step up from praying to gods. In any case, Maoism is about having a particular material analysis, understanding class, surplus value flows, culture, and so on. It is about applying dialectical materialism, starting with analysis of a world in motion and moving on to higher level and more complex scientific conclusions. However, the channel flipper, the zombie "left," starts by picking a style, an organization, a leader, and then moves on to parrot the "analysis" or line in an ad hoc way. It's like the "analysis" is just a cover for the emotional attachment to a leader or style.

What makes these first world groups quasi-fascist is they agitate on behalf of the the white petty bourgeois labor aristocracy. These movements are first world labor aristocratic movements, just like fascists. If you are out there telling whitey that he deserves a bigger piece of the pie, then objectively you aren't that much different from the fascists who also tell whitey he is being oppressed. You are playing to the same social base, the same class interests that the fascists do. Whitey isn't totally oblivious to the facts of the world, even if the zombie "left" is. Whitey knows his high standard of living is connected to the super-exploitation of the Third World. From the point of view of science, whitey isn't exploited at all. So, what are you doing when you tell whitey he deserves a bigger piece of the pie? You are fanning the same flames the fascists do. You are pushing whitey toward supporting more imperialism, more exploitation of the Third World. Sure, you might throw some internationalist rhetoric out there too, but it's not going stick because it is in whitey's interest to align with the big bourgeoisie against the Third World. Now, this doesn't mean every single imperialist adventure will be successful or that whitey will support every imperialist adventure. Right now, more and more amerikans want to cut the loses in Iraq -- and that's a good thing, we should encourage it. But, you don't encourage it by telling whitey that he deserves MORE wealth; that he deserves Iraqi's resources.

The principal contradiction is between oppressor nations and oppressed nations. When you agitate on behalf of the white labor aristocracy, so-called "workers," you are siding with the oppressor nations whether you know it or not. From the standpoint of the international proletariat, you are an enemy -- just like the fascist. There are some who have been influenced by anarchism who are on the correct side of the principal contradiction. J. Sakai is an example. David Gilbert might be another example.

Maybe a few of you actually can understand what I am getting at; most won't because most here are just channel flippers -- which is why I usually don't reply at length over on this forum, it usually isn't worth the time. For those that actually have a clue, you can follow the various links in my signature.

[rebelworker]

Class position is subjective.

In the first world the proletariate is better off than the proles in the third world.
But the third worls is not evenly developed either. Are Korean Workers "labour aristocracy? they have a much higher standard of living than their Vietnamese brothers and sisters.

What of argentinian workers vs Nicaraguan workers?

To say that white workers in Canada shouldnt follow their aspirations for a better life is rediculous.

I used to work in a textile factory, my department was mostly white. We were nearly as exploited as the asian women in the next department over, and there were non white workers (hatian and central american) in my department.

Was the Salvadoran guy working the cutter I picked from a facist because he wanted to better the conbditions in the factory? he worked in a white dominated department.

many white people have very good standards of living in the first world, not all of us are "labour aristocracy".

I was almost killed by faulty macheinary at work last week, where is my privaledge?
I was expendable, so were my white co workers, in the name of cost saving.

I have no guilt for my standard of living, my father is chronically underemployed and lives in a trailer park. My family is exploited and part of the international working class.

White people make up a majority of the prison population in the US. There are more poor whites than Blacks in the US (though as a percentage Blacks are more exploited).

There are loarge numbers of opressed people of European decent in North America.
There are great wealth divisions between people of Europena decent ( Irish, southern and eastern Europeans vs English or western Europeans).

J Sakai's books arer interesting, but writing off all european workers is wrong. Racism devides workers. For a long time "whiteness" has been a major barrier to revolution. Divusions betweeen Blacks and Latinos are now on the rise. No one whants to be "at the bottom" we are devided in north america, but unity around class alliances is possible.

[gilhyle]

CombatLiberalism, Thats just great - you have figured out how to be morally pure - must feel good, siding only with the oppressed, abandoning the working class.

What you aint got is a clue how to change the world...cos the last people to be able to change the world are the oppressed....and you claim to hate liberals (youre doing exactly whta they do) !!!

Read a bit MORE Marx.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:57 AM
Most anarchists, trotskyists, etc. are love amerikkka white chauvinists, they are no allies of mine. They are counter-revolutionaries who agitate on behalf of the labor aristocracy. They are enemies, closer to fascism than communism.
Oh sure just go ahead and forgot about the Nazi-like-holocausts Mao and Stalin perpertrated onto there people. Trotskyism is Leninism. Maoism and Stalinism would make Lenin and Marx roll over in there grave at the beaurocracy they created and the consolidation of worker's power and the bad reputation they earned communism.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:01 PM
CombatLiberalism, Thats just great - you have figured out how to be morally pure - must feel good, siding only with the oppressed, abandoning the working class.

What you aint got is a clue how to change the world...cos the last people to be able to change the world are the oppressed....and you claim to hate liberals (youre doing exactly whta they do) !!!

Read a bit MORE Marx.
Marx is overrated. While he contributed the majority of what is modern day leftist thought, his writings are imperious and pretentious. While I respect him, he's certainly not the best leftist authority for anyone who is thinking in terms of the 21st century.

Granted, I probably would say the same thing about Mao.

[CombatLiberalism]

gilhyle is a perfect example of what I was talking about. If I thought gilhyle was capable, I would suggest that they go to the People's University where an in depth study of Capital is happening. Of course, I don't expect anything from channel flippers over here.

@rebel worker: Class position is not subjective according to Marx, neither is exploitation. There is no revolutionary "working class" class in the first world, there isn't even exploitation going on. There isn't exploitation going on with whitey or most foreign workers in the u$ or kkkanada. Exploitation is a measurable value. In order to claim someone is exploited, you have to establish a value for labor, in order to establish a bar to see who is and who is not having surplus value appropriated. Just because first world employers make profit is not sufficient to prove that profit is a result of exploitation of the employed in the first world. Profit can be a result of labor congealed elsewhere in a production chain and realized much later. Marx gave two ways of approaching this issue, both ways of establishing the value of labor show that amerikans are paid way in excess of the value of any productive labor they do (most amerikans aren't even employed in productive areas under the most generous reading of Marx). In any case, I already told serious people where to go to investigate these issues. If you want to throw Capital out, if you want to deny the entire history of white labor as documented by Sakai, then go ahead. As, I've said already, people here don't care about material investigation. Their treat ideology like the channel flipper. If latching on false hope in a white revolution is your way of coping, then there isn't much I can say to someone with such a religious commitment to their faith.


White people make up a majority of the prison population in the US. There are more poor whites than Blacks in the US (though as a percentage Blacks are more exploited).

Regarding prisoners. Prisoners are some of the only proletariat in the first world. However, so what? You are pointing to the exception to prove something about the majority. Instead, show how someone making 30,000$ is exploited. Show me with science.


I was almost killed by faulty macheinary at work last week, where is my privaledge?
I was expendable, so were my white co workers, in the name of cost saving.

I have no guilt for my standard of living, my father is chronically underemployed and lives in a trailer park. My family is exploited and part of the international working class.

A bourgeoisie can slip on the shopfloor. A manager can get his foot stuck in the elevator. This is not exploitation according to Marx. The majority of the global population lives on less than 3$ a day. They live on the verge of literal starvation. And you seriously wondering where your privilege is? Are you that much of a first world bumpkin? Do you really need me to point this out? You are not part of the international proletariat, you are part of the labor aristocracy. To even begin to assert that your situation is akin to someone making 3$ a day is absurd. You are just dogmatically asserting that you are part of the proletariat. What empirical studies have you done? Have you investigated surplus value transfers to see where surplus value from the Third world ends up? You don't have any methodology. I don't care if you think you are part of the proletariat, plenty of people are delusional. My neighbor thinks he can foretell the future, it doesn't mean he can.


Racism devides workers. For a long time "whiteness" has been a major barrier to revolution.

Yes, racism is a barrier. And, as I have already said, your position is first world chauvinist and white chauvinist because you believe that whitey is entitled to more wealth. There is only so much wealth in the world, even an amerikan at minimum wage is within the richest top 15% in the world. So, you agitate on behalf of the richest 15%. Who do you think pays for that? If you can figure this out, then you'll know why you are a quasi-fascist. We communists agitate on the vast majority of humynity, the vast majority who has been ripped off by the first world and massive white labor aristocracy. Whitey owes reparations to the Third World; under socialism, whitey will be paid LESS.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:57 AM
Most anarchists, trotskyists, etc. are love amerikkka white chauvinists, they are no allies of mine. They are counter-revolutionaries who agitate on behalf of the labor aristocracy. They are enemies, closer to fascism than communism.
You Mao-loving, rebellious, pot smoking teenagers just tickle me! :lol: If you were actually marxists, you would recognize that your relation to the means of production, rather than race or continental position, ultimately decides your strength in current society. Let me restate that: calling white workers a "social class" of any sort is not marxist in any way. How will you fix the problem of these dirty whites anyway? Is this problem of humanity an external force that can't be fixed that was passed down by evil gods? Or does this white privilege have material roots and can it be solved from a historical materialist viewpoint?

[CombatLiberalism]

@Reddali: You are so uninformed that you think "white" is a race. "White" refers to a nation not a race; in communist literature "white" has referred to a nation since the days of the Comintern. Communists like Pepper, Haywood and Stalin went to great lengths to debunk bourgeois race theory. Relation to the means of production? Less than 25% of amerikans are even employed in industries that can be liberally considered productive according to Marx. Marx doesn't count the service sector and paper pushing as productive. So are you saying that less than a quarter of amerikans are proletarian?

Actually, the proletariat is the class with nothing to lose but its chains. It is the exploited class. It is the class from which surplus value is appropriated. It is the class which bares a certain relationship to the means of production. It is a class that does productive labor. It is the revolutionary class. You need to put down your Marx for Dummies and actually read Marx. Marx's description does not characterize the first world labor aristocracy, the so-called "workers" of the first world. And, anyone with a brain is well aware that the first world so-called "workers" are totally reactionary.

I've wasted enough time here among the channel flippers. If someone makes an informed comment, I'll respond. Otherwise, this is my last post. The more serious readers here should follow the links in my sig and check out the Marxist Economics forum and Capital Study group.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I would be a maoist, unfortunately I can't bring myself to be an apologist of Stalin and Mao the way maoists are. Stalin may have industrialized Russia, but he also went completely against Lenin by beaurocratizing the party and consolidating worker power. He also purged anybody who spoke out and I cannot support someone like that. Mao may have increased living standards during the GLP and Cultural revolution however the death toll is upsurd the MIM maintains that ONLY 800,000 people were killed by Mao's approval. Only 800,000. Only 800,000 people is a lot of people. Also Maoists don't realize the terrible reputation Stalin earned communism. Everyone thinks gulags when they think of communism because of Stalin. For now, I agree with the cultural revolution and New Democracy but I will not support Stalinism.

[CombatLiberalism]

I'm glad you are beginning to look into these issues, I encourage you to look deeper. You are mistaken about what MIM claims though.

Let me quote the FAQ you took that figure from:

MIM writes, "Mao did claim government responsibility for 800,000 executions between 1949 and 1954"

The assertion is about what Mao claimed, not what MIM claims. I have never read MIM claim a definate figure. In addition, that figure doesn't even cover the entire Mao period, Mao was in power until September 9th, 1976.

Regardless, MIM's point is that no matter how you approach the issue both Stalin and Mao were better than any real alternatives in terms of humyn life. When looking at these issues, we have to look at the whole picture. For example, between 1917 and the Stalin era, life expectancy doubled. Think about how many millions of lives that were saved!

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:09 AM
between 1917 and the Stalin era, life expectancy doubled. Think about how many millions of lives that were saved!
Combat Liberalism

I quite understand that 'channelhoppers' like myself disappoint you (I'll have to re-figure what that term means)....

You will, no doubt, be more than insouciant, I suspect, in the face of my disappointment at the above quoted argument. When your moral purity isnt reminidng me of the double-think of liberalism, your use of accountancy is reminding me of the top five accountancy partnerships. Strange how your methods of thinking, keep reminding me of the methods of thinking of the dominant class.

But I give you this much: this kind of 'realpolitik' calculation which misses the big picture is exactly what defines stalinism in all its forms

BTW, the phrase 'first world chauvinism' wont obliterate the fact that the oppressed of the third world CANNOT overthrow capitalism - they can just die trying.

[Labor Shall Rule]

In a letter between Marx and Engels, and Engels to Karl Kautsky, they stated the common "trot" argument, that under-developed countries could not survive the pressures of a socialist revolution, unless it spread to the more industrialized nations of Europe and North America. They called for a first world revolution that would secure the small proletariat of many third world countries.

But who cares about facts? Combatliberalism is a maoist, and I am certainly a reactionary if I question anything that Mao, Uncle Joe, or Dear Leader has said.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:09 AM
Regardless, MIM's point is that no matter how you approach the issue both Stalin and Mao were better than any real alternatives in terms of humyn life. When looking at these issues, we have to look at the whole picture. For example, between 1917 and the Stalin era, life expectancy doubled. Think about how many millions of lives that were saved!
Well, that's an interesting thought however the cost of raising living standards shouldn't be at the cost of thousand if not millions in labor camps and the loss of free speech and democracy. Also think about the bad reputation Stalin in particular earned communism. It is regarded as a tyranical ideology thanks to him and his sateillite dictators.

Another question, why do Maoist hate Trotsky and what is crypto-trotskyism?

[CombatLiberalism]

Well, that's an interesting thought however the cost of raising living standards shouldn't be at the cost of thousand if not millions in labor camps and the loss of free speech and democracy. Also think about the bad reputation Stalin in particular earned communism. It is regarded as a tyranical ideology thanks to him and his sateillite dictators.

Another question, why do Maoist hate Trotsky and what is crypto-trotskyism?

I agree with your concerns. However, when evaluating the history of "real existing socialism," we have to look at what was really possible under the circumstances they found themselves in. It would not be materialist to compare these societies with a utopian fantasy. In the real world, there are many class enemies, foreign and domestic, and they have to be stopped from making counter-revolution. Comparatively, the Soviet Union and China had imprisonment rates lower than the united $tates does now. They had lower prisoner rates than the u$ and they were facing huge threats of counter-revolution and imperialist invasion. I think that this speaks to how superior socialism is to capitalism. Of course we should criticize the Soviet Union and China for their failings, but we should make sure are criticism are grounded in what was really possible. We shouldn't just make utopian criticisms or repeat liberal anti-communist propaganda. Even Stalin criticized the excesses at times. As far as free speech, for the vast majority of the proletariat and oppressed classes, they had more free speech under socialism than under capitalism or semi-feudalism.

Mao gave Stalin a 70 % positive, 30 % negative rating. Obviously, it's not an exact quantification of anything. What it is is getting across the idea that Stalin made mistakes, but was nonetheless the best alternative. Mao made mistakes also. Nobody is perfect and to expect perfection is idealist.

As far as eastern Europe, it is hard to say. Stalin had to do something after World War 2 to protect socialism and de-Nazify germany. Many of the eastern european states did become revisionist, but I think that has more to do with the post-Stalin era leaders in the Soviet Union rather than Stalin himself. Stalin died in 1953.

Crypto-Trotskyism is Trotskyism posing as Maoism. Those who claim to uphold Mao yet embrace Trotsky's Permanent Revolution. Here: https://irtr.org/forums/vtopic101.html&high...ryptotrotskyism (https://irtr.org/forums/vtopic101.html&highlight=cryptotrotskyism)

I answered about Trotskyism earlier in this thread.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Use proper grammar you petty-bourgeois, reactionary, chauvinistic fool. China has a equally violent history to that of the United States. I actually still pissed about how the Qing Dynasty enslaved various tribal peoples near the modern-day Chinese-Burma border. :D Why the hell do you spell Canada, KKanada, or Israel, $srael? Did you know that Stalin actually lended some supported for the creation of the Jewish state? I can't participate in this anymore. I am going to go rip out a picture of Mao from a history book and take a wet dump on it.

[CombatLiberalism]

@Reddali: Actually, the Soviet Union was the first nation to recognize the state of I$rael; they recognized i$rael an hour or two before the u$. In addition the Soviets had set up secret arms deals with the zionists through Czechoslovakia even before there the zionists had declared a state. Whether it was a mistake to do so is another issue. Basically, the Soviets were trying to undermine the briti$h and united $nakes who were attempting to organize the Arab states into an anti-Soviet military pact similar to NATO. Molotov admits that everything turned out badly with i$rael in his autobiography. It's not like you are saying anything that educated communists don't already know.

That you can't figure out why someone would spell KKKanada with three "K"s is a reflection of your white chauvinism and absolute divorce from the oppressed peoples. I'm still waiting for you to say anything of substance. And, I do realize that I have broken my own rule by even replying to your ridiculous posts.

[bezdomni]

That you can't figure out why someone would spell KKKanada with three "K"s is a reflection of your white chauvinism and absolute divorce from the oppressed peoples. I'm still waiting for you to say anything of substance
Spelling words a certain way does not make you revolutionary.

If anything, it shows an absolute divorce from oppressed people to assume spelling Canada as KKKanada would actually amount to anything.

[More Fire for the People]

CombatLiberalism: workers, regardless of their different struggles, have a common struggle against the capitalist class. Workers have a qualitative not quantitative relation to the means of production: everywhere and anywhere there is someone who sells his or her labor-power to those who can hire him or her is a proletarian. Because of their solidarity in that fundamental struggle all workers must take up the tasks of ending all forms of oppression of the working class and poor peasanty.

[CombatLiberalism]

everywhere and anywhere there is someone who sells his or her labor-power to those who can hire him or her is a proletarian.

That isn't Marx's view, although I am aware that certain quotes in isolation lend themselves to this simplistic reading. Not all labor is productive nor creates value according to Marx. Not all those who earn a wage create surplus value. If you want to retain the word "proletariat" for all wage earners, that is fine (Marx doesn't). However, then you have to admit that not all proletarians are exploited or revolutionary. Engels chose to retain the word when speaking of the "bourgeoisified" english labor aristocracy as a "bourgeoisified proletariat." The issue is who Marx considered part of the revolutionary class. And, for Marx that was tied up with exploitation, the appropriation of surplus value. Now, according to Marx, not everyone who earns a wage is exploited or even productive. In fact, Marx mocks that view in Theories of Surplus Value. Here are some quotes: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...veparasites.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=marxunproductiveparasites.txt)

However, Marx covers this point throughout Capital also. Marx specifically doesn't think that wage earning bureaucrats, paper pushers, priests, entertainers, merchant workers such as cashiers, and so on as having the same relationship to the means of production as the proletariat. In several places he says as much. Yes, they may be waged, but they don't have the same relationship to the means of *production*. They aren't even directly producing commodities or involved in the overall production process. So, right off the bat, according to Marx, the majority of those in the u$ aren't proletarian by your definition. My 25 percent figure earlier in this thread was extremely generous. However, this is only one of many characterizations of the proletariat in Marx. And, when you look at the fullest characterization in Marx, it is clear that almost virtually no amerikans qualify as proletarian. I already made this point earlier.

Even if you want to re-write Marx and say all wage "earners" are creating value, this still doesn't get you to the claim that they are all proletarians and having surplus value appropriated or they are all part of the revolutionary class. In order to do this, you have to establish a value for labor and then show that their wages are less than that value. Maoists on IRTR actually came up with a method for this calculation based on quotes in Capital; they found that even with your theory (which isn't Marx's) and its expanded notion of value, using Marx's method of calculating exploitation, the nearly all amerikans are *still* not exploited. There is a thread here called "the value of labor-power" (the thread is falsely named, the value of labor is calculated here, not labor power): http://irtr.org/forums/topics-3-0-0.html Here is another thread that is important to this: http://irtr.org/forums/vtopic515-0.html

So far you have merely asserted that all waged individuals are revolutionary a priori. Now, since, you have dropped Marx's explanatory mechanisms as to why exploitation is tied to revolution, you are obliged to provide some reason for your assertion, otherwise it is totally arbitrary and metaphysical. In addition, most of the history of the first world "labor" movement stands contrary to your position that all waged individuals share a common class interest. You have a huge burden of proof.

[gilhyle]

Combat Liberalism, just thought I'd 'hop' back,

Your argument that you have to have regard to what is materilly possible is true, in principle. But if Stalinism actually PREVENTED key revolutionary processes, partticularly (in my view) the radicalisation of the Spanish Revolution then you have to face the fact that his policies contributed to determining the failure of the early twentieth century revolutionanry process. It was Lenin's judgement that an international revolutionary process was materially POSSIBLE at that time - I think he was correct. But it didnt happen - and country by country one can trace the role of stalinism in curtailing that revolutionary process by the pursuit of third period isolationism and then popular front compromise.

Secondly, while Marx did indeed make use of the distinction between productive and non-productive labor, I dont recall him using that distinction as the basis for differentiating between the proletariat and the waged non-proletariat (whoever they are)

The concpet of the aristorcracy of labour is quite clearly a concept defining a subset WITHIN the proletariat. as Engels used it and not a concept defining a group of waged outside the proletariat.

By the same token, Marx does not assume that all the proletariat are spontaneoulsy revolutionary (as Maoism sometimes seems to suggest) but rather that they are subject to a fundamental common material interest with other proletarians which, in the absence of overwhelming counterbalancing material interests of a shorter term nature will be revolutionary. Your concept of the proletariat is quite un-marxist and merely sociological.

[CombatLiberalism]

@gilhyle: I have already addressed all your points on Marx. You are saying the same thing Hopscotch is. This is not a debate about the word "proletariat." Although, Marx clearly doesn't think all workers are proletarian as the quotes I already provided show. Also, in Vol 3 Capital Marx gives the example of a cashier who is hired by merchant capital. Marx doesn't even consider all wage earners workers, note that in the fist quote from the link I gave Marx refers to unproductive workers as "so called 'workers'" and "parasites." The issue is not word usage, although many on this forum are so divorced from science that they think it is.

You need to examine the material conditions, which include the mechanisms of exploitation, and then arrive at who is and who is not going to be part of the revolutionary class/classes. The relevant question is: who is the revolutionary class and why? Obviously, this question is tied inextricably to the question of who is exploited? I already said this to Hopscotch. We have a methodology, I already provided the link. Even given your assumptions, your expanded notion of value and productive labor (which are not Marx's), amerikans STILL make more than the value of their labor. In other words, in this context, the issue of productive and non-productive labor doesn't affect the question of whether or not amerikans are exploited. The only reason I raised that issue is because someone had a bad interpretation of Marx. Just read the first few chapters of Capital, where does Marx give an example of, for example, a magic performer or barbarer or cashiers as value creating? He doesn't, and he mocks the view of 'immaterial commodities' in the quotes I gave earlier. The reason is because their labor is not congealed into commodities, a hair cut is not a commodity. In other words, it is the same reason why housework isn't value creating. If there is no value creation, there is no surplus value creation going on. Now, obviously non-productive workers can be oppressed, but not exploited. And, oppressed groups/classes can be part of the revolutionary classes. The whole reason I raised the issue of productive/non-productive was to show that according to another poster's view, right off the bat most amerikans don't even qualify as revolutionary by that persyn's own standards. This issue is moot because even granting a non-Marxist expanded notion of value and productive labor, amerikans still are not exploited.


By the same token, Marx does not assume that all the proletariat are spontaneously revolutionary (as Maoism sometimes seems to suggest) but rather that they are subject to a fundamental common material interest with other proletarians which, in the absence of overwhelming counterbalancing material interests of a shorter term nature will be revolutionary. Your concept of the proletariat is quite un-Marxist and merely sociological.

Read what has already been posted. Hopscotch made this point. Exactly! The classes are not spontaneously revolutionary, they are revolutionary because certain conditions apply to them, for example, EXPLOITATION. I have already point you to our method of calculating this. All you do is continue to ignore any material conditions. It's as though you think what makes the "proletariat" revolutionary is because it fits into some conceptual jigsaw puzzle. That is exactly the kind of approach Marx deplored, which is why Capital is filled with empirical investigation and explanatory mechanisms for why the proletariat is the revolutionary class.

I'm not going to continue to respond to stale formulations that have *no* investigation behind them and are barely even based on Marx. If you want to refute the Maoist view (which is the Marxist view also, but that isn't important right now), just cut to the heart of the matter and show that on average amerikans make less than the value of their labor. This will involve some empirical research on your part. What is so hard about this for the people in this thread? To anticipate one vulgar objection: And, just pointing out that profit is realized in the first world doesn't mean that is where it is produced.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:19 PM

That you can't figure out why someone would spell KKKanada with three "K"s is a reflection of your white chauvinism and absolute divorce from the oppressed peoples. I'm still waiting for you to say anything of substance
Spelling words a certain way does not make you revolutionary.

If anything, it shows an absolute divorce from oppressed people to assume spelling Canada as KKKanada would actually amount to anything.

Indeed. But, worse than that, in my opinion, is writing British with a dollar sign. Like this: "briti$h". It shows a remarkable lack of imagination, in my opinion. I mean, writing the United £ingdom would probably be better, but it still wouldn't work. I suppose, if the Euro was made the currency in Britain, the Unit€d Kingdom would be alright.

But, essentially, as I said, it all shows a remarkable lack of imagination. If you're going to go to the trouble of restructuring the English language, then do it with a bit of panache. Variations in a theme, get a bit boring when repeated....constantly.

On a side note, I'd love to be a "Crypto-Trotskyist". How good does that sound? It's almost as if I've found a Channel I liked....

<_<

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:33 PM
In a letter between Marx and Engels, and Engels to Karl Kautsky, they stated the common "trot" argument, that under-developed countries could not survive the pressures of a socialist revolution, unless it spread to the more industrialized nations of Europe and North America. They called for a first world revolution that would secure the small proletariat of many third world countries.

But who cares about facts? Combatliberalism is a maoist, and I am certainly a reactionary if I question anything that Mao, Uncle Joe, or Dear Leader has said.
You can find quotes from Marx, Engels and Lenin that supports the oppressor nation "workers" theory.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/classics.html

Actually, I faced reality about a year and a half ago. As depressing as it is it&#39;s also reality. Even though it goes against the party I work with, I think MIM&#39;s position on this question is correct. CombatLiberalism is doing a great thing trying to open people&#39;s eyes here, but I think a lot of you are too stubborn and don&#39;t want to see the cold materialist truth. It reminds about a debate we had on here regarding pornography, when someone proporting to be a Marxist-Leninist tried to argue NFL football players are just as oppressed as wimmin working the cash at WalMart, and they just as oppressed as someone forced into working a sweatshop or prostitution in the 3rd world. It was ridiculous, anti-materialism and abstract individualist idealism.

I&#39;m probably poorer than 70% of the people on here, if not more. And I still have internet at home, eat well everyday, have clothing for my children and myself, etc. etc. and it&#39;s at the cost of the third world proletarian. People need to wake up and realise this.

[Hit The North]

CombatLiberalism:
Even given your assumptions, your expanded notion of value and productive labor (which are not Marx&#39;s), amerikans STILL make more than the value of their labor.

Amazing then, that Starbucks, Burger King and WalMart make any profit.

Your attempt to co-opt Marx&#39;s comments directed against the petite bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia ("The great mass of so-called &#39;higher grade&#39; workers—such as state officials, military people, artists, doctors, priests, judges,
lawyers..." Cited Here (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=marxunproductiveparasites.txt)) and use it to disqualify the 1st World working class is crass, chauvenistic and counter-revolutionary.

[CombatLiberalism]

Amazing then, that Starbucks, Burger King and WalMart make any profit.

Do you even read? I already addressed this:


&#39;m not going to continue to respond to stale formulations that have *no* investigation behind them and are barely even based on Marx. If you want to refute the Maoist view (which is the Marxist view also, but that isn&#39;t important right now), just cut to the heart of the matter and show that on average amerikans make less than the value of their labor. This will involve some empirical research on your part. What is so hard about this for the people in this thread? To anticipate one vulgar objection: And, just pointing out that profit is realized in the first world doesn&#39;t mean that is where it is produced.

Check the last line. Just because profit is realized at distribution doesn&#39;t mean that the end point is the source of the value; it also doesn&#39;t mean that the source is the production point closest to the distribution point where it is realized -- lettuce is not grown in the back of the supermarket; beans aren&#39;t picked in the back of starbuch&#39;s. The source of the profit is from early in the production chain. A good example is with a merchant capital chain. No value at all is created in a merchant capital chain, yet value is realized in that chain. The value was created earlier, when the labor was congealed into the commodity. Again, I notice you haven&#39;t bothered to even do any investigation. Otherwise, you could tell us a value for labor and show that amerikans on average make less than that. As our investigations show, if amerikans are being paid more than the value of their labor and yet there is still profit, that means the surplus value is coming from at earlier point in the production/distribution chain. You are being totally dogmatic by just assuming that the source of profit comes from those hired in the First World or that the source of surplus value is evenly distributed throughout the production/distribution chain. Without material investigation you can&#39;t even begin to back up your claim. As Comrade Marcel said, this is just more abstract idealist noise from the opponents of Marxism.


Your attempt to co-opt Marx&#39;s comments directed against the petite bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia ("The great mass of so-called &#39;higher grade&#39; workers—such as state officials, military people, artists, doctors, priests, judges,
lawyers..." Cited Here) and use it to disqualify the 1st World working class is crass, chauvenistic and counter-revolutionary.

Someone made the claim that all wage earners are a priori exploited and proletarian. I showed that this obviously wasn&#39;t the case according to Marx. That quote clearly shows that Marx does not think this is the case -- there are similar quotes all over the place in Marx. Marx clearly drew this distinction. Marx does not consider things like hair cuts, cashier work, etc. to be value creating. They do not congeal labor into commodities; they do not create value. At best they are bound up with realizing value. And, in any case, this point is moot as I already said. Because even if you want to drop Marx and use an EXPANDED notion of value and embrace a theory of "immaterial commodities" (Marx mocked this view, by the way), even with all of this, amerikans are STILL not exploited. I will grant you the expanded theory of value for the sake of argument (even though it is wrong); go ahead and add the value of services and other non-productive sectors into the equations. Cut to the chase if you think your view is correct. Answer my challenge and show that amerikans make less than the value of labor. Why dance around the issue.

@Comrade Marcel: Where you live, and I don&#39;t want to know, if there is no party with a correct line on such a cardinal issue, you may, at some point want to start your own party. It may seem like a daunting task, but it is the burden of the vanguard to lead -- as Lenin taught.

[Hit The North]

Just because profit is realized at distribution doesn&#39;t mean that the end point is the source of the value; it also doesn&#39;t mean that the source is the production point closest to the distribution point where it is realized -- lettuce is not grown in the back of the supermarket; beans aren&#39;t picked in the back of starbuch&#39;s. The source of the profit is from early in the production chain. A good example is with a merchant capital chain. No value at all is created in a merchant capital chain, yet value is realized in that chain. The value was created earlier, when the labor was congealed into the commodity. Again, I notice you haven&#39;t bothered to even do any investigation.

No, the commodity is not the bean - it is the latte, or whatever, which is made on the premises. Only when it is served up to you is it properly a commodity identifiable with Starbucks.

Now, if Starbucks was paying each of its vendors above the value of their labour then it would be cutting it&#39;s own corporate throat. Are you seriously suggesting that the minimum wage labour of your average fast food worker is over-valued?


As our investigations show, if amerikans are being paid more than the value of their labor and yet there is still profit, that means the surplus value is coming from at earlier point in the production/distribution chain.

The problem is that "(y)our investigations" have not proved that American workers are paid above the value of the labour they provide.

The fact that you mistake the coffee bean as the commodity which Starbucks deals in, rather than the actual beverage itself, demonstrates a faulty appreciation of the production and distribution of commodities under capitalism.

Nevertheless, by identifying the exploited producer as soley the farm labourer who produced the bean, whilst identifying the worker who stands behind the counter at Starbucks as a profiteer of the farm labourer&#39;s exploitation, you imitate fairly standard Maoist prejudices against the urban proletatriat.

It reinforces the notion that Maoism is a peasant ideology.


Someone made the claim that all wage earners are a priori exploited and proletarian. I showed that this obviously wasn&#39;t the case according to Marx. That quote clearly shows that Marx does not think this is the case -- there are similar quotes all over the place in Marx.

Yes, but the only way your argument (That the American working class is paid above the value it produces) would be justified by the Marx quotes you use is if the entire class was composed of "state officials, military people, artists, doctors, priests, judges, lawyers..."

[gilhyle]

Your approach involves a sociological method that tries to identify the revolutionary class with the &#39;exploited&#39;. This is a reductionist method.

If I understand you, you are relying on a concept of productive labor which Marx uses in Capita (and more so in Theories...)l. That concept of productive labor is a concept of labour that is hired by productive capital in that phase of the reproduction of capital that involves the the direct production of goods. Marx distinguishes this type of labor in order to identify a kind of labor which is organised directly by productive capital in forms which suit productive capital.

Now it is certainly true that the exchange value produced by such workers exceeds the cost of the reproduction of their labor. But that has no necessary political consequence. If I understand you, you suggest, that the revolutionary class are that sub-section of productive labor which has not been compensated with labor aristocratic earnings.

Empirically, the amount of capital these workers work with is much higher than is applied in earlier phases of the production process, so it does not follow - if you want to be empirical - that the amount of value they create is less than the surplus they produce.

But that kind of empirical argument would be wrong because these references to productive labor are reductionist. The whole reliance on political economy to decide who is or who is not revolutionary is quite wrong - but its also obvious that these reductionist arguments matter too much to you in determining your political programme

[CombatLiberalism]

@Citizen Zero

Wrong again.


No, the commodity is not the bean - it is the latte, or whatever, which is made on the premises. Only when it is served up to you is it properly a commodity identifiable with Starbucks.

Now, if Starbucks was paying each of its vendors above the value of their labour then it would be cutting it&#39;s own corporate throat. Are you seriously suggesting that the minimum wage labour of your average fast food worker is over-valued?

I already answered this. Let me quote myself:


[Quoting Myself here] As our investigations show, if amerikans are being paid more than the value of their labor and yet there is still profit being made, that means the surplus value is coming from at earlier point in the production/distribution chain. You are being totally dogmatic by just assuming that the source of profit comes from those hired in the First World or that the source of surplus value is evenly distributed throughout the production/distribution chain. Without material investigation you can&#39;t even begin to back up your claim.

Pay attention to the first line. Even if you want to claim that the Starbuch&#39;s employee is engaged in productive labor. It doesn&#39;t matter, you have not shown he is exploited&#33; You still need to establish a value for labor and show that the employee&#39;s wages fall below that value. Why? Because the surplus value can be coming from earlier in the production chain. I have repeated this about ten times and nobody wants to address the issue.


Are you seriously suggesting that the minimum wage labour of your average fast food worker is over-valued?

Yes. See our calculations in the previous link I provided. We have done calculations based on Marx&#39;s theory of value and the theory that all wage earners are creating value (which is false). According to both theories, amerikans are not exploited.


Nevertheless, by identifying the exploited producer as solely the farm labourer who produced the bean, whilst identifying the worker who stands behind the counter at Starbucks as a profiteer of the farm labourer&#39;s exploitation, you imitate fairly standard Maoist prejudices against the urban proletatriat.

I am assuming no such thing. In fact, we have shown that the amerikan minimum wage is above the value of labor. Now, since the surplus value can&#39;t be coming from the amerikan Starbunch&#39;s employee, then it has to be coming from farther down the production chain. I have granted, for the sake of argument the expanded notion of value, I have shown you calculations, and the proof. In fact, you and the others are the dogmatists here. You are being totally dogmatic by just assuming that the source of profit comes from those hired in the First World or that the source of surplus value is evenly distributed throughout the production/distribution chain. Without material investigation you can&#39;t even begin to back up your claim. We have done the investigations -- even one based on your assumptions. And, amerikans are not exploited.

We&#39;ve done calculations based on Marx&#39;s theory of value and on the theory of value that you and the other people are advocating in this thread. According to both calculations, amerikans are not exploited. I have already provided the links, but apparently people in this thread are not capable of or interested in actually getting to the bottom of this.


Yes, but the only way your argument (That the American working class is paid above the value it produces) would be justified by the Marx quotes you use is if the entire class was composed of "state officials, military people, artists, doctors, priests, judges, lawyers..."

Wrong again, we have done calculations based on both theories of value. I have already provided the links.

@gilhyle:


Your approach involves a sociological method that tries to identify the revolutionary class with the &#39;exploited&#39;. This is a reductionist method.

Wrong. The method I use is clearly not reductionist. I identify the revolutionary class with a nexus of properties I provided a few posts ago. My definition does put exploitation at the center of the nexus, but so does Marx. You put forth the abstract idealist theory identifying it with a non-Marxist conception of the means of production, although you clearly didn&#39;t understand the implications of your own view. Your view is the ridiculously reductionist (and metaphysical) one. Mine is based on the most complete science available.


If I understand you, you are relying on a concept of productive labor which Marx uses in Capita (and more so in Theories...)l.

No, it doesn&#39;t rely on it. As I have said in several posts now, we have done both calculations. One base on Marx&#39;s view and another calculation that assumes all amerikans are productive. In both cases, amerikans are not exploited. If you want to refute my view, then you have to provide an alternative approach to the calculation. I&#39;m not trying to be rude here, but you really aren&#39;t understanding things or you are playing dumb because you know you are wrong. The only reason Marx&#39;s distinction was mentioned was the show someone, I forget who, that their ideas weren&#39;t Marxist. Like I said, our argument doesn&#39;t rely on the distinction of productive/non-productive necessarily.


Empirically, the amount of capital these workers work with is much higher than is applied in earlier phases of the production process, so it does not follow - if you want to be empirical - that the amount of value they create is less than the surplus they produce.

You have to show that amerikans make less than the value of their labor. This is what you have to do to show they are exploited, period.


But that kind of empirical argument would be wrong because these references to productive labor are reductionist. The whole reliance on political economy to decide who is or who is not revolutionary is quite wrong - but its also obvious that these reductionist arguments matter too much to you in determining your political programme

Wrong again. I have said about ten times that we&#39;ve done both calculations -- one based on Marx&#39;s theory and one based on your&#39;s and the other people here. According to both, amerikans are not exploited. What calculations have you done? I seriously don&#39;t understand how you and the others in this thread think you are actually dealing scientifically and honestly with these issues. At least be honest enough to admit that you haven&#39;t really looked into the issue.

I am not trying to be rude here, but I have gone into this in more depth than anyone here. I have given links and answered every "criticism" about five times now. On the other side, no investigation has been done at all and none of my points have been answered. All we see is dogmatism and occasional emotionalism from the other posters.

I&#39;ve answered all of this so many times, another round of ask and answer is probably not going to do any good. Unless, of course, you provide some calculations, there is really no point in this. I have answered every objection several times now. Do you think that we came to this conclusion on a whim? Maoists have studied it inside and out -- that is why I know every objection that is going to be made. That is why I anticipated so many of the "objections" that have been raised.

[gilhyle]

It is understandable that you would be frustrated at the need to repeat yourselves to those reluctant to fall in line with the overwhelming persuasiveness of an empirical calculation - particularly if you yourself find empirical calculations as attractive as you apparently do.

Identifying the &#39;red&#39; herring of productive labor is useful.

Yet it remains the case that any calculation you do involves aggregating the monetary effect of the different social relations of labor aristocratic reward and the more fundamental social relation of the recompense of the costs of the reproduction of labor.

Now the point of the Marxist analysis is to refuse to aggregate these two distinct relations into a single calculation. It involves insisting that, notwithstanding the influence of labor aristocratic reward at any point in time, the more fundamental distinction between those who secure their reproduction by the expenditure of the labor and those who do not rely solely on that remains.

Thus it is not a matter for to anyone testing your calculations. You may have done calculations on two bases, but you ignore the option that such calculations are methodologically misconceived - as I said before your methodology is that of the accountant or Weberian at best - but I doubt that Weber would stand over your method.