On Lonered's signature

[black magick hustla]

Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

I think you and many others do not understand the left communist or anarchist position on "authoritarianism".

When anti-authoritarian communists speak about "anti-authoritarianism", they don't mean that we are going to have a tea party with our bourgeois buddies.

They mean that in revolution and post-revolution society, revolutionary groups are going to be organized in a libertarian fashion. Of course such groups are going to exert coercion over reactionary elements, but a minority is not going to exert their authority on the proletariat.

So yeah, revolution is one of the most authoritarian actions you can exert against any group.

However, the elements pursuing such revolution do not need to be organized necessarily in an authoritarian fashion.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Authoritarian communists make up flaws about anarchism so they can justify their hope of leading a revolution. If you asked all the authoritarians on the forum, I imagine a suprising amount would answer yes to the question:

"Do you see yourself holding a high ranking position within the vanguard party?"

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Marmot+Oct 1 2006, 06:59 PM--> (Marmot @ Oct 1 2006, 06:59 PM) However, the elements pursuing such revolution do not need to be organized necessarily in an authoritarian fashion. [/b]
Can you even consider an armed action by a group of paramilitants as a revolution and not a coup?

If the paramilitarys have most of the support of the masses, the masses usually don't understand the theory behind what the paramillitants are doing.

It's not a revolution if theres nothing awoken inside the masses, all they'd know is that they are promised better things.

So to me anyways, a revolution isn't authoritarian at all.


DAB
"Do you see yourself holding a high ranking position within the vanguard party?"

Anarchists can make this mistake of self-righteousness too.
The question for everyone should be:
"Can you really expect someone to hold a gun, and have them not know what they are fighting for ?"

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 1 2006, 07:52 PM


If the paramilitarys have most of the support of the masses, the masses usually don't understand the theory behind what the paramillitants are doing.

It's not a revolution if theres nothing awoken inside the masses, all they'd know is that they are promised better things.

So to me anyways, a revolution isn't authoritarian at all.



That is exactly what happened with the bolshevik coup-

The bolsheviks were backed up by most of the proletariat (which occupied a very small percent of the russian population) but not by the peasantry (which was much bigger)




"Can you really expect someone to hold a gun, and have them not know what they are fighting for ?"

?

[LoneRed]

keep on talking, don't let me interupt

[YSR]

Well, they're pretty much obliterating your position, so I think you should do something to yourself from looking like an idiot.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:01 PM
That is exactly what happened with the bolshevik coup-

The bolsheviks were backed up by most of the proletariat (which occupied a very small percent of the russian population) but not by the peasantry (which was much bigger)

Yes this is true <_< ... sadly so.
And we have to learn from this.
But, before this turns into an Anarchist Vs.alleged Leninists debate didn&#39;t the Mahknovists have members in their army who committed Anti-Semetic pogroms?

Okay, so maybe Mahkno and all the knowledgable Anarchists didn&#39;t terrorize Jews, but those who weren&#39;t aware of Anarchism and what it meant did.

For a time they were allied with the Bolsheviks, so in a way they defended the coup. Because the Bolsheviks implemented revolution, they thought they could too.

That was history, maybe if we were back then in time we&#39;d be fighting off the white guard aswell. If we knew what we knew now we wouldn&#39;t be fighting for the white guard or for anyone.

The point is that we&#39;re all guilty of coups.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 1 2006, 09:37 PM
Well, they&#39;re pretty much obliterating your position, so I think you should do something to yourself from looking like an idiot.
obliterating :lol: :lol: , where did this obliterating happen, all i see is whining.

[LoneRed]

Liberatarian communists, if their program was used, would lead the working class nowhere, they don&#39;t completely understand the nature of things, such as umm... revolution and cannot adequately attack it.

[The Grey Blur]

I&#39;m really sick of threads like these

Everyone should just go read State & Revolution

That goes for the Anarchists & the &#39;Leninists&#39; in this thread

[rouchambeau]

It&#39;s not a revolution if theres nothing awoken inside the masses
Why do "the masses" (I assume you mean the proletariat) need to be awakened? If you recall the writings of Marx you would know that the proletariat is the natural enemy of capitalism and will fight it when necessity dictates it. No need for a vanguardist alarm clock.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:09 AM

It&#39;s not a revolution if theres nothing awoken inside the masses
Why do "the masses" (I assume you mean the proletariat) need to be awakened? If you recall the writings of Marx you would know that the proletariat is the natural enemy of capitalism and will fight it when necessity dictates it. No need for a vanguardist alarm clock.
If you recall Marx also says that communists shouldn&#39;t just sit about on their arses waiting for the inevitable fall of capitalism

[Everyday Anarchy]

Everyone should just go read State & Revolution

That goes for the Anarchists & the &#39;Leninists&#39; in this threadEveryone should just go read the Bible. That goes for the atheists & the &#39;Christians&#39; in this thread.

Telling someone to go read a book/essay is not an argument.


Liberatarian communists, if their program was used, would lead the working class nowhere, they don&#39;t completely understand the nature of things, such as umm... revolution and cannot adequately attack it.Oh, please enlighten us all to this mystical "nature" of revolution.

[The Grey Blur]

Telling someone to go read a book/essay is not an argument.
:huh: I&#39;m not arguing with anybody I just offered some advice - go read State & Revolution - everyone will know their own view and their opponent&#39;s view better instead of endless back-and-forth twaddle focusing on minor issues

Like I said these threads irritate me so I try to keep out of them

[LoneRed]

If you think its mystical we have a long way to go. There are inherent qualities of revolution, most of which it seems that you dont understand. comprende?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Oct 1 2006, 11:26 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Oct 1 2006, 11:26 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 08:01 PM
That is exactly what happened with the bolshevik coup-

The bolsheviks were backed up by most of the proletariat (which occupied a very small percent of the russian population) but not by the peasantry (which was much bigger)

Yes this is true <_< ... sadly so.
And we have to learn from this.
But, before this turns into an Anarchist Vs.alleged Leninists debate didn&#39;t the Mahknovists have members in their army who committed Anti-Semetic pogroms?

Okay, so maybe Mahkno and all the knowledgable Anarchists didn&#39;t terrorize Jews, but those who weren&#39;t aware of Anarchism and what it meant did.

For a time they were allied with the Bolsheviks, so in a way they defended the coup. Because the Bolsheviks implemented revolution, they thought they could too.

That was history, maybe if we were back then in time we&#39;d be fighting off the white guard aswell. If we knew what we knew now we wouldn&#39;t be fighting for the white guard or for anyone.

The point is that we&#39;re all guilty of coups. [/b]
First, I am first a materialist, then a communist. Communism without materialism is useless.

So, I do not slander the bolsheviks as being "evil", on the contrary, I think they were a progressive force and ultimately helped to industralize Russia

Makhno and the anarchists were doomed to fail from the beginning. The romantic notion of makhnovist anarchism seems very appealing, but there werent simply the material conditions to sustain it. The libertarian nature of anarchism doesn&#39;t works as a compulsive force to industralize a society.

My problem with many leninists is that they call the bolshevik state a workers&#39;state, and this wasn&#39;t really the case. That is just not being a materialist, and not understanding that while the bolshevik actions were probably necessary, they weren&#39;t socialist actions.

I am not going to fall on the "evil lennie" infantile crap many anarchists trap themselves into.



I&#39;m really sick of threads like these

Everyone should just go read State & Revolution

That goes for the Anarchists & the &#39;Leninists&#39; in this thread

I read "state and revolution". ;)


Liberatarian communists, if their program was used, would lead the working class nowhere, they don&#39;t completely understand the nature of things, such as umm... revolution and cannot adequately attack it.

Care to elaborate?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 1 2006, 07:18 PM
Authoritarian communists make up flaws about anarchism so they can justify their hope of leading a revolution. If you asked all the authoritarians on the forum, I imagine a suprising amount would answer yes to the question:

"Do you see yourself holding a high ranking position within the vanguard party?"
in case your implying it, the paris commune was not anarchist.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution
Why do "the masses" (I assume you mean the proletariat) need to be awakened? If you recall the writings of Marx you would know that the proletariat is the natural enemy of capitalism and will fight it when necessity dictates it. No need for a vanguardist alarm clock.
Its ideas that start revolutions, like Locke to Bourgeois and Marx to Proletarian.
It doesn&#39;t just one day click out of nowhere and they all of a sudden wish to liberate themselves, no. You have to get these ideas known to the people.

[KC]

Authoritarian communists make up flaws about anarchism so they can justify their hope of leading a revolution. If you asked all the authoritarians on the forum, I imagine a suprising amount would answer yes to the question:

"Do you see yourself holding a high ranking position within the vanguard party?"

You like ripping off Redstar&#39;s shit?



So to me anyways, a revolution isn&#39;t authoritarian at all.

Revolution is inherently authoritarian. What&#39;s more authoritarian than killing people?



Why do "the masses" (I assume you mean the proletariat) need to be awakened? If you recall the writings of Marx you would know that the proletariat is the natural enemy of capitalism and will fight it when necessity dictates it. No need for a vanguardist alarm clock.

Because material conditions don&#39;t spontaneously make the proletariat class conscious. Being spontaneously anti-capitalist is completely different than being spontaneously class-conscious, and has never happened anywhere, nor will it ever.

[Connolly]

Because material conditions don&#39;t spontaneously make the proletariat class conscious. Being spontaneously anti-capitalist is completely different than being spontaneously class-conscious, and has never happened anywhere, nor will it ever.

Having a revolutionary class consciousness requires certain objective material conditions which cannot be "preached" or read in a book.

Having a vanguard wont "spontaneously" bring proletarian class consciousness either - just as much as an Islamic revolutionary vanguard or fascist vanguard wont create proletarian class consciousness. They might succeed in robbing power and installing their own social reforms based on their own fucked up ideologies (same could be said for Maoism and Leninism) - but it aint class consciousness which is being created - just the thoughts and ideas of the vanguard - which might possibly be void of any correlation to the actual objective material conditions.


Its ideas that start revolutions, like Locke to Bourgeois and Marx to Proletarian.
It doesn&#39;t just one day click out of nowhere and they all of a sudden wish to liberate themselves, no. You have to get these ideas known to the people.

I dont agree with what your saying. Ideas come into existence through our interaction with objective material conditions, via our senses.

Its objective material conditions which creates ideas, class consciousness, and therefore revolution.

So far, Marx&#39;s ideas have not created socialist revolution (unless you want to fool yourself thinking the USSR was socialist) because objective conditions 1. have changed significantly since his time and understanding and 2. they have not come into existence.

Marx&#39;s ideas, in terms of the next stage of human society, might be no more valid than a priests (thats not to say they are as of yet).

Ideas and decisions must correlate with objective material conditions - otherwise they are worthless to the cause of the working class.

Trying to "bring revolutionary class consciousness" to the working class (not that it would work in any meaningful way in todays society) is equivilent to a priest trying to bring the feeling of Jesus to the hearts of his followers. Both the revolutionaries ideas and the priests might be void of any correlation to actual objective conditions - both can be invalid.

Telling people to rise up now to overthrow the system, without the workers figuring it out for themselves through their own objective conditions, is totally fucked up and is doomed to failure. It will not create socialism.

It amounts to the brainwashing of the working class (if it were any way successful).

[KC]

TRB, perhaps you didn&#39;t realize that productive forces are based on class struggle?

[Connolly]

TRB, perhaps you didn&#39;t realize that productive forces are based on class struggle?

KC, perhaps you didnt realize that the existence of class is based upon the productive forces?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)Revolution is inherently authoritarian. What&#39;s more authoritarian than killing people?[/b]

Not if the reaction tries to kill you first, so you defend yourself.
Revolutions always start as the masses defending themselves.


RedBanner
Trying to "bring revolutionary class consciousness" to the working class (not that it would work in any meaningful way in todays society) is equivilent to a priest trying to bring the feeling of Jesus to the hearts of his followers. Both the revolutionaries ideas and the priests might be void of any correlation to actual objective conditions - both can be invalid.

Ah, you&#39;re twisting my words.

It just won&#39;t all of a sudden click one day out of nowhere that the proletariat see&#39;s themselves seizing political power and running society.

These idea&#39;s of proletarian revolution have been around for more than 150 years.
So they are already out there.

If you&#39;re saying you also need objective circumstances in order for a communist revolution to happen, yes this is true. But in the mean time we have to keep building ideas, get these ideas known.

What do you think we are doing now on revleft?
We&#39;re building ideas and discussing them.
If you really think that some biological clock will ring some day within all the oppressed and they will all of a sudden strive for Communism, then we might aswell get off revleft and shutup.

[Connolly]

Not if the reaction tries to kill you first, so you defend yourself.
Revolutions always start as the masses defending themselves.

In this I was trying to show KC&#39;s contradiction.

Class struggle is based upon the existence of class, and class is based upon the productive forces.

Not the other way round for which KC suggested it were.


Ah, you&#39;re twisting my words.

It just won&#39;t all of a sudden click one day out of nowhere that the proletariat see&#39;s themselves seizing political power and running society.

These idea&#39;s of proletarian revolution have been around for more than 150 years.
So they are already out there.

Yes, and interms of actual proletarian revolution (ie. socialist) absolutly nothing of the sort has happened. History has shown the outcome of the various revolutions and it hasnt been proletarian victory, or even proletarian for that matter.

Dont get me wrong, much has been gained from socialist ideas and will continue to be that way, but we can attribute this to the class struggle within society, not particularly a revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.

This class struggle dosnt necessarily need socialist ideas, the workers just have to know whats in their interest. When rhetoric is added in such as creating a revolutionary class consciousness and utopian ideas (possibly void of actual and future objective conditions - possibly not) then it begins to become something that might not be in the working class&#39;s interest, to establish and implement these ideas.

Class struggle alone would suffice for proletarian advancement. We dont necessarily have to use socialist ideas or import revolutionary ideas. Class struggle changes objective conditions and will eventually advance them to the point where the proletariat, by themselves, will reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions based on their objective conditions - without fortune tellors and mystical, non-objective, elitist ideas.


If you&#39;re saying you also need objective circumstances in order for a communist revolution to happen, yes this is true. But in the mean time we have to keep building ideas, get these ideas known.

What do you think we are doing now on revleft?
We&#39;re building ideas and discussing them.
If you really think that some biological clock will ring some day within all the oppressed and they will all of a sudden strive for Communism, then we might aswell get off revleft and shutup.

What are we doing on revleft?

Just what all the Christian nutters are doing on their dedicated forums - discussing ideas. They dont necessarily have to be related to objective conditions to discuss.

The point of the matter is, we are a select few. Our ideas dont necessarily reflect the ideas and needs of the working class. If they did then the working class themselves would reach the same conclusions - and - in the real world - they havnt.

This is where the vanguard is used - "the most advanced members of the working class" to try suggest we have further knowledge and wisdom than the average workers and can make better decisions than they themselves can make in their interests.

This is complete horse raddish. Christian fundamentalists could claim the same thing - "we know better than you".

We dont know better, and we shouldnt try impose our views (right or wrong) on the working class - doing so is misleading and utter brainwashing.

We can use our beliefs, most logical as they are, to fight the class struggle existent in class society and help the process along which we believe will lead to a higher order of society.

Trying to impose what you think is class consciousness on another and calling for the revolutionary overthrow of society might just be against objective conditions for both class consciousness and revolution.

[KC]

Not if the reaction tries to kill you first, so you defend yourself.
Revolutions always start as the masses defending themselves.

Yes, it starts that way; then the proletariat fights for dominance. They go on the offensive and wrest power from the hands of the bourgeoisie. To both take and maintain power they use authoritarian measures.


Class struggle is based upon the existence of class

Actually, class struggle presupposes class.


and class is based upon the productive forces.

The productive forces are merely a way of maintaining class status. The reason the bourgeoisie continues to perpetuate the capitalist socio-economic structure is because it is a way of maintaining their status as the ruling class.

Your assertion that productive forces are definitive of class is backwards. Productive forces are developed because of class conflict. That is why the productive forces are dependent upon class conflict.

Marx never believed that the development of history was dependent upon the mode of production; whenever he spoke of the development of history in terms of productive forces he was speaking in generalities; he was summarizing. That is why Marx never believed (like you do) that proletarian revolution will come about spontaneously, as a result of the development of productive forces. That is why he said in the communist manifesto that the "aim of the Communists is the...formation of the proletariat into a class".

I suggest that you read From Feudalism to Capitalism: Marxian Theories of Class Struggle and Social Change by Claudio J. Katz. He refutes your position quite well.

[Connolly]

Actually, class struggle presupposes class.

Useless comment.


The productive forces are merely a way of maintaining class status. The reason the bourgeoisie continues to perpetuate the capitalist socio-economic structure is because it is a way of maintaining their status as the ruling class.

No, im afraid thats just BS. The reason the bourgeois "perpetuate" the capitalist system is because

1. Their objective conditions do not allow for any "vision" beyond their own class society

2. Capitalism and its social structures remain progressive and efficient to the development of production without contradiction.

3. Another, higher and alternative form of society destined to replace capitalism has not developed sufficiently within capitalism itself to challenge the present order of society.

4. Revolutionary proletarian class consciousness does not exist to challenge bourgeois society.

The methods of production dictate the social organisation around such methods. Alternative methods can be "warped" but will be destined to failure - such as the Soviet Union and Communist China which did, in time, adopt the social organisation most efficient and suited to present production methods, capitalism and the free market.


Your assertion that productive forces are definitive of class is backwards. Productive forces are developed because of class conflict. That is why the productive forces are dependent upon class conflict.

No, thats just plain and outright wrong.

So according to you a communist society would not develop and advance productive forces since class would not exist, and therefore class struggle.

As I have said, the organisational structure of humanity is defined by the productive forces.

Productive forces are advanced due to our own interaction with objective conditions. Society is advanced through revolution and is also based on objective conditions.


Marx never believed that the development of history was dependent upon the mode of production; whenever he spoke of the development of history in terms of productive forces he was speaking in generalities; he was summarizing. That is why Marx never believed (like you do) that proletarian revolution will come about spontaneously, as a result of the development of productive forces.

This is wrong.

Productive forces are objective conditions.

Marx believed revolution comes about through the existence of certain objective conditions.


is why he said in the communist manifesto that the "aim of the Communists is the...formation of the proletariat into a class".

Yeah, look at the communist party&#39;s now.

That shows what he knew.

You must take into consideration that Marx believed society ready for revolution, he believed he had an understanding as to what constitutes socialism and its production methods and organisation.

He was wrong. Present social trends prove this.

[KC]

Useless comment.

Actually, it&#39;s true.


No, thats just plain and outright wrong.

So according to you a communist society would not develop and advance productive forces since class would not exist, and therefore class struggle.

You&#39;re right. I misworded that. I should have said the following:

In class society productive forces are developed as a means of maintaining class position.


Productive forces are objective conditions.

Marx believed revolution comes about through the existence of certain objective conditions.

You proved yourself wrong:


Yeah, look at the communist party&#39;s now.

That shows what he knew.

You must take into consideration that Marx believed society ready for revolution, he believed he had an understanding as to what constitutes socialism and its production methods and organisation.

He was wrong. Present social trends prove this.

You&#39;re basically saying that Marx believed that revolution comes about through the existence of objective conditions, yet when I showed you that he believed that subjective forces were just as important, if not more so, you said he was wrong.

How about this one:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

[Connolly]

Actually, it&#39;s true.

But besides the point.


You&#39;re right. I misworded that. I should have said the following:

In class society productive forces are developed as a means of maintaining class position.

But its not.

Productive forces are developed to further sustain the human species consciously or otherwise.

Various class systems throughout history developed and were in place due to their efficiency for any given productive force and mode.

Its simply not possible to re-arrange society and productive forces in an efficient manner to suit whatever means we choose.

There is no logic to it.


You&#39;re basically saying that Marx believed that revolution comes about through the existence of objective conditions, yet when I showed you that he believed that subjective forces were just as important, if not more so, you said he was wrong.

What is a party only an organizational structure brought about through objective conditions.

Stone age men didnt have the concept of a party because objective conditions didnt necessitate one.

Marx calling for the formation of a communist party was a reaction to objective conditions.

Again, just like this idea, and a long list of others, Marx&#39;s objective conditions no longer apply to the modern day working class.


You forget (or dont know) that ideas are formed by objective material conditions which influence subjective thought.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 03:53 PM
Class struggle is based upon the existence of class, and class is based upon the productive forces
I don&#39;t know what significance the both of you are trying to make of this...
I thought as radical thinking people (radical meaning we try to reduce everything to it components so we can make sense of it all) we all agree that its the productive forces that results in class society.


Yes, and interms of actual proletarian revolution (ie. socialist) absolutly nothing of the sort has happened. History has shown the outcome of the various revolutions and it hasnt been proletarian victory, or even proletarian for that matter.

Then what do you consider the Paris Commune, or the outcry in 1848 when the Parisian workers waved the redbanner and occupied parts of France only to have their blood cover the streets? They weren&#39;t victorious, but proletarian.


Dont get me wrong, much has been gained from socialist ideas and will continue to be that way, but we can attribute this to the class struggle within society, not particularly a revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.

Ideas which are subjective are influenced by the objective environment. For example it wasn&#39;t until the formation of the working-class did they see themselves taking power. If there were a time machine and you back to the middle ages and talked about the proletariat and socialist theories, they&#39;d probably look at you funny because that theory just doesn&#39;t relate to their environment.


This class struggle dosnt necessarily need socialist ideas, the workers just have to know whats in their interest. When rhetoric is added in such as creating a revolutionary class consciousness and utopian ideas (possibly void of actual and future objective conditions - possibly not) then it begins to become something that might not be in the working class&#39;s interest, to establish and implement these ideas.
What are you saying, it&#39;s much easier to not classify your theory and ideas as "socialist"?


Class struggle alone would suffice for proletarian advancement. We dont necessarily have to use socialist ideas or import revolutionary ideas. Class struggle changes objective conditions and will eventually advance them to the point where the proletariat, by themselves, will reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions based on their objective conditions - without fortune tellors and mystical, non-objective, elitist ideas.

You&#39;ll have people among the proletariat who uphold socialist theory, and probably have for a long time. When imperialism monoplozes more, and replaces people with machines then others in the proletariat may possibly understand that "poor wacko Commie"s idea.


Just what all the Christian nutters are doing on their dedicated forums - discussing ideas. They dont necessarily have to be related to objective conditions to discuss.

Okay so they can&#39;t prove god exists, but organized religion has been around ever since grain-surplus houses evolved into churches and palaces-- as when productive forces changed to agriculture.

Ideas, theories, religions just don&#39;t comeout of peoples arses. If you to ask what I think the lifeorms on other planets would be like, I couldn&#39;t really tell, I&#39;d give you pictures of stuff similar to Earth.


The point of the matter is, we are a select few. Our ideas dont necessarily reflect the ideas and needs of the working class. If they did then the working class themselves would reach the same conclusions - and - in the real world - they havnt.

Thats not to say there aren&#39;t multiple ideas among the working-class. There are Nazi assholes in the working-class, there are green-hippies, there are conservatives, liberals ect. (I&#39;ll continue later about this)


This is where the vanguard is used - "the most advanced members of the working class" to try suggest we have further knowledge and wisdom than the average workers and can make better decisions than they themselves can make in their interests.
If you think of vanguard as better than thou, you&#39;re right.
But to me, its those who are more versed in Communist theories as opposed to other theories. I&#39;m not better than anyone. If they wish to know more about Communism they could ask me. Buts thats not saying I won&#39;t learn from them, or I&#39;m some great guru.

To me the problem isn&#39;t vanguards, its paramilitantism and coup de etats.
(Unless ofcourse a vanguard thinks itself as setter of a coup, but you don&#39;t necessarily have to think in that frame to start a coup).



We dont know better, and we shouldnt try impose our views (right or wrong) on the working class - doing so is misleading and utter brainwashing.
I&#39;m not a fan of imposing ideas either, I&#39;ll just merely present my ideas.
You can take it or leave it, or even tell me I&#39;m full of shit.
I have to respect you have your own mind, because I have my own mind to.


Trying to impose what you think is class consciousness on another and calling for the revolutionary overthrow of society might just be against objective conditions for both class consciousness and revolution.

Its not that I&#39;m about forcing objective conditions into overthrowing governments, it&#39;s just that I seen from history is that the rulers of the order will not take to new ideas that are opposed to their interests: Ending up as them trying to destroy those who are for a new order, and the new order defending itself-- then they figure out that they, the new order will have to implement the new society themselves. ( I know it sound mechanistic, but in every revolution where a coup wasn&#39;t planned this has happened).

[KC]

A class&#39;s impact on economic development is rooted in the logic of class struggle. Class conflict arises from the system of exploitation, in which control of the means of production entails the right to allocate labor power and its product. Individuals come to organize and struggle as classes principally to protect and defend common conditions of existence. This is the chief reason they develop and maintain various types of class based institutions - for example, peasant village organizations, labor unions - whose prupose is to impose a certain discipline on their members and coordinate their activities: these are indispensable prerequisites of successful struggle.

How, then, do the contending classes pursue their interests? What is the most rational way of doing so? Their strategies depend on the prevailing mechanisms of surplus extraction. The dominant class&#39;s predominant interest lies in reproducing these mechanisms. Specifically, its members are obliged to protect their capacity to appropriate a surplus, both from rivals within their own class and from the subordinate class. They are thus compelled to use the lion&#39;s share of the surplus they extract to preserve and improve the means to extract additional surplus. Economic growth is a function of the size and use of socially produced wealth. Increases in productivity are achieved when surplus product is applied to expanding and improving society&#39;s productive forces. Ruling classes, then, promote economic progress only when and to the extent that using surplus to reproduce the existing instruments of exploitation coincides with using it to reproduce the instruments of production.

The form and intensity of the direct producers&#39; resistance to the demands made on them is the other major factor determining how socially produced wealth is distributed and to what ends it is applied. Individuals within the subordinate class employ the surplus they succeed in retaining to reproduce their material conditions of life. How they use this surplus depends on their position as a class. Do they have direct access to the means of production? They will then be in a position to improve their material well-being by improving the productive forces. Hence Marx argues that the medieval peasantry provided the main impetus for feudal economic growth. Proletarians, in contrast, do not have direct access to the means of production. The major portion of the surplus they succeed in retaining is directed to consumption. Effective demand, however, only makes an indirect contribution to capitalist development.

The way in which people use their economic resources to improve their material circumstances does not necessarily correspond to the use of these resources to maximize productivity. Each is governed by qualitatively different principles. The economic activities in which individuals must participate to improve their circumstances are determined by their class position, that is, by the nature of their rights over labor power and tangible wealth. But the economic activities in which they would have to participate to maximize the rate of economic growth entail the development and implementation of new productive techniques. Whether and with what degree of efficiency a society searches for and applies new techniques depends upon the strategies the members of its constituent classes are required to adopt in their endeavor to maintain historically conditioned modes of life. Rational economic behavior is defined by their needs and capacities as members of a class, not by the "needs" or "powers" of the forces of production. Thus, capitalism&#39;s prodigious productivitiey is sustained by the imperatives of its appropriation process, which channel the vast proportion of the surplus it generates into th edevelopment of physical plant and equipment. Capitalists are obliged to invest to preserve the conditions of continued surplus extraction; the market ensures that those who fail to compete go under. By contrast, the feudal aristocracy depended upon extraeconomic means of coercion to siphon a surplus from the peasantry. Feudal lords thus used their wealth to maintain the military and political complex that buttressed their class power. They allocated the surplus they extracted to sustain policies of war and magnificence, neither of which made sustained contributions to productive development. The nature of feudal class rule therefore constrained growth within narrow bounds.

A crisis in a mode of production occurs when the economic strategies individuals adopt to imporve their material conditions collide with the reproduction of the productive forces. A social contradiction, Marx argues, comprises a situation in which the uses of surplus product individuals must make to defend their class position undermine the development of the forces of production; or, inversely, when the necessary investments of surplus they must make to maintain the productive forces impair their class power. Contradictory imperatives in the process of surplus appropriation eventually undermine the preconditions of the process itself. Thus, for example, the most rational way for capitalists to appropriate surplus value is to introduce labor-saving technology. Yet this strategy is at once necessary to defend their capacity to extract a surplus ans self-destructive, for the replacement of living labor by machinery narrows the base from which additional surplus can be drawn. Similarly, the preservation of feudal class power required lords to improve the extraeconomic complex of military and political coercion. Accordingly, the lords siphoned more surplus from the peasant economy than they returned to it in the form of productive investments, eventually crippling its ability to produce any surplus. With the erosion of the preconditions of surplus appropriation, the motive force of economic development falters and stalls. The resulting crisis manifests itself in a contraction of society&#39;s material base.

The general depression is surmounted only when class relations are restored or revamped. A particularly sever crisis may result in a restoration of the dominant class system, but in an altered form. Thus, for example, following the fourteenth century crash, feudal economic growth resumed again in the sixteenth century, but only once feudal class relations were stabilized by the nascent absolutist monarchies. Similarly, the great capitalist world crash of the early twentieth century put an end to capitalism&#39;s liberal phase; the economic miracle following World War II occurred under the auspices of a state regulated capitalist economy. Or, in the event that the crisis results in the qualitative transformation of the dominant class system, economic growth resumes under the imperatives of the new class system: for example, the transition from feudal to capitalist class relations witnessed in the English countryside in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries enabled the increases in agricultural productivity that eventually underwrote England&#39;s industrial revolution.

This explanation of the nature of social crises is incompatible with Marx&#39;s more familiar account, given in the technological interpretation of historical materialism. The widely received view is that crises are the result of a collisiion between growing productive forces and increasingly obsolete class relations, wherein the tension between them is resolved in favor of the forces, by a qualitative change in the relations. A defense of the thesis that history is class struggle turns this conception upside down: Crises are the result of contradictions inherent in the dominant class system which disrupt the reproduction of the productive forces, crippling material life. These contradictions may in fact culminate in a prolonged regression of society&#39;s productive power - for example, the sever economic deterioration which attended both the decline of the Roman Empire and the crisis which convulsed feudal Europe in the fourteenth century. Only prior changes in class relations permit the emergence of new productive forces. The nascent class system determines the possiblities for productive development: there is no suggestion in this view that the new ruling class will necessarily encourage optimal growth, and no hint that it emerged in order to do so.

Under what conditions, then is a class created with the capacityand the interest to transform society as a whole? Marx&#39;s theory of class struggle does not answer this question in a sufficiently rigorous fashion. One of the ways to identify its ambiguities is to return to the catalogue of class conflicts with which Marx opens the first part of the Manifest: "Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another...." These struggles culminate "either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." The theory of class is thus tied to the transformation of types of society: A successful revolutionary class destroys the system of exploitation oppressing it, constituting itself as an alternative ruling class.

It has been pointed out, however, that this catalogue of class conflicts omits the struggle between aristocracy and bourgeoisie, precisely the struggle that propelled the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The reason, we shall argue, is that a fundamental difference exists between the class systems characterized as "oppressor and oppressed" and the conflict between the feudal and nascent capitalist classes. The omission, in other words, suggests a distinction between two types of class struggle. On the one hand, the antagonism characterizing Mar&#39;x catalogue of class conflicts, for example, lord and serf, arises out of the nexus of exploitation between an appropriating and a producing class. On the other hand, the antagonism between aristocracy and bourgeoisie represents a class conflict between irreconcilable owners of the menas of production, that is, between two appropriateing classes struggling to secure the dominance of differing modes of surplus extraction. The main difference between these two types of class conflict may be schematically stated thus: The former involves the struggle within a mode of production, arising out of the conflict of interest within a single class-based system; the contending classes clash over the distribution of surplus produced in a given economy. The latter involves the antagonism between modes of production, deriving from a clash between class systems; class conflict here concerns the mode whereby surplus is produced. These two types of class conflict are qualitatively different: they have distinct sources and they are governed by different dynamics. More importantly, they resolve themselves in different ways. Class conflict within a mode of production typically ends not in "a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large" but rather "in the common ruin of the contending classes." By contrast, the clash between class systems culminates in the formation of a wholly new society and economy. One of the most important issues facing a class analysis of radical historical change, then, is to account for the processes whereby the conflict within a mode of production transforms itself into the conflict between modes of production....

[LoneRed]

that shut them up eh?


So once again the main topic has been completely forgotten, There neednt be any in depth analysis of my sig, its quite easy to understand, If you are an anarchist, and lack the outlook needed to change society, (a class collaborationist), then you serve the reaction, whats the problem with understanding that?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:38 PM
that shut them up eh?


So once again the main topic has been completely forgotten, There neednt be any in depth analysis of my sig, its quite easy to understand, If you are an anarchist, and lack the outlook needed to change society, (a class collaborationist), then you serve the reaction, whats the problem with understanding that?
Sorry, I didn&#39;t have internet.

No, you see you still haven&#39;t addressed what I said in the main topic, and still my arguments retains its power.

Anarchists understand that the bourgeois needs to be repressed, but they do also understand that class brothers and sisters should all have the same voice.

You disagree comrade?

[LoneRed]

Most anarchists I talk to believe there is no need for that period of bourgeois supression, most just bypass.

I believe that the working class needs to take power, repress the bourgeois, until the time comes when the "representatives" or the system of a republic isn&#39;t needed. Who is saying they shouldnt have a voice?, I am not talking free speech from the proletarians, no, I am taking it away from those who don&#39;t deserve it, the capitalists, the oppressors of the working class