The Proletarian Revolution - will it ever happen

[jasmine]

Is there a difference in believing in the coming proletarian revolution and believing in the second coming of Christ? Is there evidence for either? Or how about this? Is it more reasonable to be a member of the CPGB the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Scientologists? Tell me all about the superiority of the 'scientific method.' I can hardly wait!!!

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 05:59 pm
Tell me all about the superiority of the 'scientific method.' I can hardly wait!!!
Well the very fact that it's scientific kind of answers your question. It's not just based on some irrational belief.

And by the way, why haven't you been restricted yet? You're clearly reactionary.

[jasmine]

And by the way, why haven't you been restricted yet? You're clearly reactionary.

Really? I am opposed to racism in all forms, I am absolutely for gay rights including marriage, I am unequvocally opposed to fascism, I don't much like the catholic church but don't want to suppress it, I am generally for better pay and conditions for workers.

I could go on. How am I 'clearly reactionary.' Because I don't agree with you maybe?

[jasmine]

Let me spell this out a little more. The problem you have with me is you don't know what label to apply. I would like to see a socialist society but I do not see how it is going to happen. I don't think the evidence of the last 160 years supports Marx's prognoses. Do you? Really? If so explain why. You are all very quick to demand proof for religious belief but very slow to provide evidence for your own beliefs. And that is what they are. Beliefs. Not facts or even probabilities.

You should know that most people will not distinguish between a Jehovah's Witness or the CPGB. To most people both group's beliefs seem just as far fetched, incomprehensible and irrelevant.

Try talking to people who don't accept you premises every now and then. You may learn something.

[Redmau5]

I don't think the evidence of the last 160 years supports Marx's prognoses. Do you? Really? If so explain why.

Because anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Marxism knows that a Marxist economy has never been implemented. It's really pathetic when the liberals or right-wingers say shit like "communism can't work, look at Russia/China/Vietnam/Cuba etc." Do you think when Marx envisaged a future communist society he meant the USSR? Somehow I think not.


You are all very quick to demand proof for religious belief but very slow to provide evidence for your own beliefs. And that is what they are. Beliefs. Not facts or even probabilities.

Well the difference between Marxism and religion is that Marx didn't just say "I believe there will be a communist society, because I have faith". He laid out his reasons as to why he though that the final stage of history would be communism. Maybe you should check out his work sometime, rather than just a fucking wikipedia article.


Try talking to people who don't accept you premises every now and then. You may learn something.

I do talk to reactionaries quite alot. It just solidifies my belief in communism even more. Maybe you should read some books on communist or anarchist theory and you might learn something.

[YSR]

It's theory, not faith.

Pretty clearly.

[jasmine]

Well the difference between Marxism and religion is that Marx didn't just say "I believe there will be a communist society, because I have faith". He laid out his reasons as to why he though that the final stage of history would be communism.

And his reasons were wrong - 160 years later can you not see that? Marx didn't have faith, but you do.

[jasmine]

It's theory, not faith.

And you have faith in a theory that has not been proved by 160 years of history.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

And everybody knows that if something doesnt happen in 160 years it will never happen right? Sounds like something that a person from the 1700's would of said about the abolishment of slavery.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:21 pm

Well the difference between Marxism and religion is that Marx didn't just say "I believe there will be a communist society, because I have faith". He laid out his reasons as to why he though that the final stage of history would be communism.

And his reasons were wrong - 160 years later can you not see that? Marx didn't have faith, but you do.
Who are you to say his reasons were wrong?

When you produce a major theoretical and scientific rebuttal of Marxism, maybe I'll listen to what you have to say.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 06:34 pm
I would like to see a socialist society but I do not see how it is going to happen.
see, if everyone is like that, nothing changes.
Some people are actually changing stuff, while others say: 'yeah that would be nice, but it's not going to happen, so I won't bother' If you'd like to see a socialist society, get off your ass and help building it!

[RebelDog]

Is there a difference in believing in the coming proletarian revolution and believing in the second coming of Christ?

Yes. The second coming is complete superstitious fantasy with no empirical base whatsoever. Proletarian revolution has already taken place to varying degrees and is always an inevitable consequence of the class antagonisms of capitalist society. Class warfare is the underlining driving force of history since classes became part of society.


Is there evidence for either?

Are you doubting that proletarians have never and will never rise in revolution? As you must be aware there is no evidence for the second coming of Jesus Christ just as there is no evidence fairies exist.


Is it more reasonable to be a member of the CPGB the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Scientologists? Tell me all about the superiority of the 'scientific method.' I can hardly wait!!!

Yes it is more reasonable to be a member even of the CPGB than say the Jehovahs. The study of society and its dynamics is a scientific study. Its disernable, observable. We are humans, we are alive and we live in modern society. Things like our material conditions give rise to ideas and events which shape history. It is no coincidence that in the capitalist epoch we are hear talking of communism. Capitalism gave rise to the modern industrial proletariat and the proletariat being the revolutionary class shall win communism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Erm, Jasmine.

You seem to think Marxists (or marx himself)think that global workers revolutions are definately going to happen.

Most marxists are no where near as deterministic as that.

We think that the possibility is there for it to happen, but only during the right economic conditions.

Marx also noted that, the workers revolutions might perpetually fail and we would see the destruction of all contedinging classes.

We have to make revolution!

Christians cant make jesus come by praying or screaming towards the sky.

[ichneumon]

Christians cant make jesus come by praying or screaming towards the sky.

at least we hope so

[jasmine]

Marx also noted that, the workers revolutions might perpetually fail and we would see the destruction of all contedinging classes.

I wasn't going to bother with this debate any further but this does interest me genuinely. Can you point me to where Marx said this? I am not trying to catch you out. I would like to read this.

In reply to someone else whose name I forget, I have never read the Wikipedia article.

However, when people like LSD, for example, start talking about 'the post revolutionary context' as though it were a given, they are acting purely from belief.Why should any revolution, assuming there will be one, take the shape and form described by Marx in 1848?

The Marxist revolutionary tradition, in my opinion, which may be wrong, died with Trotsky. All later attempts at the redefinition of Marxism gutted Marxism of its socialist-revolutionary content eg Eurocommunism, various national revolutions (China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea) and so on.

This does not mean I agree with Trotsky, I don't, but he did fight for a proletarian revolution, and pay for it with his death.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I wasn't going to bother with this debate any further but this does interest me genuinely. Can you point me to where Marx said this? I am not trying to catch you out. I would like to read this.


Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master [3] and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Thats from the first page of the communist manifesto.


However, when people like LSD, for example, start talking about 'the post revolutionary context' as though it were a given, they are acting purely from belief

Like all of us, LSD, i imagine, just enjoys thinking about what a world would look like in a post capitalist era.



Why should any revolution, assuming there will be one, take the shape and form described by Marx in 1848?

It wont, its for the people living in that time to decide. But, we already see the people of the world moving against oppressors. There are constant battles all over the world, from pickets to guerrilla warfare made up of people fighting some injustice. A injustice normally tied (Marxists would argue anyway) to the capitalist system.

The natural result of this, for Marx and Engels, was a conflict between workers and capitalists. A class conflict. In which, if the workers could win, a society of abundance could be established with a proper democracy and no state.

Abundance, democracy & no state is all Marxists think will be the outcome a successful global revolution. Past that we cannot begin to imagine.

[jasmine]

Like all of us, LSD, i imagine, just enjoys thinking about what a world would look like in a post capitalist era.

I don't think there is an 'all of us' - I think LSD believes fervently in the poletarian revolution much as a Jehovah's Witness believes in rapture.

I'm not sure that your quotes from the CM make your point but I'll think about it and get back to you.

What do you think about the vanguard party?

[An archist]

it will most likely turn into an opressive government.
oh and what's so strange about talking baout a post revolutionary context?
You start from a hypothesis and continue agruing from there, that tends to happen in debates.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I think LSD believes fervently in the proletarian revolution much as a Jehovah's Witness believes in rapture.

Well PM LSD and ask IF he is deterministic. Surely, he will give a far more measured response to the question of a successful global revolution that a Jehovah's witness will for the rapture.

Then again, i don't know anything about Jehovah's witnesses or the rapture :wacko:


What do you think about the vanguard party?

You know. I think it depends on the current conditions within the country thats going through the revolution. With regard to Russia in 1917, there was little communication between people over the country. There was nothing else that could work to coordinate the workers. That said. In a already developed nations communication is that much higher. a Vanguard will naturally arise from the ranks of the workers, but, the process could be much more open that the Bolsheviks could manage.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 09:26 pm
I don't think there is an 'all of us' - I think LSD believes fervently in the poletarian revolution much as a Jehovah's Witness believes in rapture.
Strength of belief is nothing. Basis for belief, however...

[jasmine]

Strength of belief is nothing. Basis for belief, however...

It's the basis I'm asking about. What is it? I don't think Marx had faith in the proletarian revolution. From his perspective, at the the time he was writing, it looked very likely. In 1850 the spectre of communism was haunting Europe. But in 2006 it is not. Not at all. So where is the evidence that the proletarian revolution is likely to happen? It's a simple enough question. Isn't it?

[jasmine]

oh and what's so strange about talking baout a post revolutionary context?
You start from a hypothesis and continue agruing from there, that tends to happen in debates.

Exactly, it's a hypothesis, but where is the evidence that the hypothesis reflects reality?

[jasmine]

Are you doubting that proletarians have never and will never rise in revolution?

The closest thing to a marxist revolution was the Russian revolution where the Bolsheviks and not the working class siezed power. After that it went from bad to worse. The state did not wither away, the opposite process occurred.

Lenin expected the German revolution to save the Bolsheviks. The Russian revolution was the bridgehead for the world revolution. Lenin, not a stupid man, quite the opposite, was wrong. His theory was wrong. The German revolution failed. Lenin's asessment of the facts was wrong. Marxism, measured by its predictions, was wrong.

Are you really applying the scientific method to yourselves?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 11:59 am
Is there a difference in believing in the coming proletarian revolution and believing in the second coming of Christ? Is there evidence for either? Or how about this? Is it more reasonable to be a member of the CPGB the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Scientologists? Tell me all about the superiority of the 'scientific method.' I can hardly wait!!!
I think it is entirely illogical to believe in the inevitability of "proletarian revolution" and the creation of a communist society- such a view is rooted in 19th century European chauvanism that viewed history as a linear process, with various societies occupying different rungs on a ladder (Europeans were obviously at the top), as well as the bullshit Enlightenment view of "progress." Probably more the ladder than the former, now that I think about it, but I digress.

However, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that, in a society where class divisions are extreme, poverty widespread and conditions unstable, something will eventually give. Whether this will result in a better society, I don't know, but previous examples of spontaneous insurrection motivated by anti-societal rage suggest that more egalitarian and ahierarchal modes of existence will probably be a likely outcome of such an event.

[Leo]

Is there a difference in believing in the coming proletarian revolution and believing in the second coming of Christ?

Christ doesn't pop in every month to say he is coming :rolleyes: Workers do however, frequently struggle against their bosses. There is an obvious conflict that cannot be solved unless workers overthrow their bosses, and only someone who has no connection with the working class can compare "proletarian revolution" to the "second coming of Christ".

[jasmine]

There is an obvious conflict that cannot be solved unless workers overthrow their bosses, and only someone who has no connection with the working class can compare "proletarian revolution" to the "second coming of Christ".

Obviously class struggle exists. Marx accepted he was not the first to see this.

But where is the scientific evidence for the proletarian revolution being the solution?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It's the basis I'm asking about. What is it? I don't think Marx had faith in the proletarian revolution. From his perspective, at the the time he was writing, it looked very likely.

Well Lenin was extremely suprised but the workers revolts and independant formation of the soviets which essentially made up dual state power in Russia. Trotsky didnt think revolution is Russia was possible because capitalism hadnt developed very far.



In 1850 the spectre of communism was haunting Europe. But in 2006 it is not. Not at all. So where is the evidence that the proletarian revolution is likely to happen? It's a simple enough question. Isn't it?

All throughout the world there are constant strikes, and leftists being elected. This has happened for years. Just remember in Russia only a few years before the 1917 revolution the populace went to rallies in support of the Tzar.

The evidence for a proletarian revolution is from history. At all stages one class has, when its able and confident enough, taken state power and completely changed society. These have been revolutions.

Why would the world we live in be any different from that?

Simply because its not happening in an overt way in 2006 doesnt meant it cannot happen in the future.

To believe the capitalist system will indefinately carry on breaks with the past.

[jasmine]

However, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that, in a society where class divisions are extreme, poverty widespread and conditions unstable, something will eventually give. Whether this will result in a better society, I don't know, but previous examples of spontaneous insurrection motivated by anti-societal rage suggest that more egalitarian and ahierarchal modes of existence will probably be a likely outcome of such an event.

I think this is a fair comment and given the twists and turns of history it's not possible to be more definite or certain.

I think baiting people to prove their religious beliefs (as seems to happen frequently on this forum) is childish and disrespectful. It's also quite bizarre when the people demanding the proof not only select the standard of proof but do not apply this standard to themselves.

Assumption and belief are a part of everbody's life. Religion is one aspect of this. Politics is another.

[Redmau5]

the people demanding the proof not only select the standard of proof but do not apply this standard to themselves.

But it's completely different. Marxist analysis of society and history is scientific, it's not just based on faith.

And it is perfectly reasonable to ask for proof or evidence in regards to people believing in immaterial, supernatural beings. What if I believed that a tiny teacup, so small that it couldn't even be seen by the most powerful telescope, orbited around the earth? That is just as rational as belief in "God". Yet I would be laughed at if I did try to make such a proposition.

[jasmine]

All throughout the world there are constant strikes, and leftists being elected.

I agree there is class struggle. This doesn't mean it will be resolved by proletarian revolution as envisaged by Marx.


Marxist analysis of society and history is scientific

This is my question. It is not enough to repeat that Marxism is scientific. How is it scientific? Was Keynes also a scientist? If not why not? How exactly are these theories tested and proven scientifically? You cannot examine the class struggle in a laboratory or a particle accelerator or test it on rats and hamsters.


And it is perfectly reasonable to ask for proof or evidence in regards to people believing in immaterial, supernatural beings. What if I believed that a tiny teacup, so small that it couldn't even be seen by the most powerful telescope, orbited around the earth? That is just as rational as belief in "God". Yet I would be laughed at if I did try to make such a proposition.

You assume that the world is a rational place. It may seem so obvious to you as to be not worth questioning but this is a huge assumption.

There is no proof of Marx's theories. You just keep saying it hasn't happened yet but sometime in the future it will happen. The tiny teacup theory is just as analogous with the arguments of Marxists as it is with religious belief.

I could argue that capitalism will be replaced by a benevolent petty-bourgeois meritocracy that will centralise the economy. I could gather selective evidence that points to this possibilty and claim it was a piece of scientific research.

Would anyone believe me? I would probably gain a few adherents.

Probably, religious belief has existed since human consciousness first emerged. It is possible that it reflects aspects of reality not discernable to you. Can you accept that as a possibility? That doesn't mean that the Pope is right or that you should convert to Islam. But maybe there really is more to life than can be tested in a laboratory.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 10:11 am
I think this is a fair comment and given the twists and turns of history it's not possible to be more definite or certain.
Precisely. The idea of history as a linear process governed by scientific laws is absurd.



I think baiting people to prove their religious beliefs (as seems to happen frequently on this forum) is childish and disrespectful. It's also quite bizarre when the people demanding the proof not only select the standard of proof but do not apply this standard to themselves.

Agreed.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Is there a difference in believing in the coming proletarian revolution and believing in the second coming of Christ?

There are two things wrong here. The first thing is that most people on this board are not determinists, meaning we dont believe proletarian revolutions is naturally inevitable. The second thing wrong with this is your use of the word "belief." Believing in specific human economic interaction and having faith in an unverifyable supernatural being are two very different types of belief.


Is there evidence for either?

There is evidence of socialism throughout history. Russia, Spain, etc, etc.

There is no evidence of the second coming whatsoever.


The closest thing to a marxist revolution was the Russian revolution where the Bolsheviks and not the working class siezed power. After that it went from bad to worse. The state did not wither away, the opposite process occurred.

The closest thing to a socialist revoultion in my opinion was the Spanish Revolution of 1936. The working class actually sezied the means of production.

To propose that things got worse after the Russian revolution is absurd. Would you rather live under fuedalism and starve or a bolshevik state that actually brought the country into the modern era?


I think baiting people to prove their religious beliefs (as seems to happen frequently on this forum) is childish and disrespectful.

It's a forum for debate, what else would you expect people to be doing?

How exactly is questioning religion disrespectful? Tell me why should we care if it is?

[jasmine]

There are two things wrong here. The first thing is that most people on this board are not determinists, meaning we dont believe proletarian revolutions is naturally inevitable. The second thing wrong with this is your use of the word "belief." Believing in specific human economic interaction and having faith in an unverifyable supernatural being are two very different types of belief.

You may be right that most people on this board are not determinists.

I think the nature of belief is very complex. I would suggest that most socialists do not arrive at their political philosophy through a careful, objective examination of history. They choose the belief first and then select the facts or events that support this belief.


There is evidence of socialism throughout history. Russia, Spain, etc, etc.
There is no evidence of the second coming whatsoever.

Did Russia (Stalin etc.) really demonstrate that socialism is a viable possibility?

Spain is an interesting example. But in the end Franco won. I am not saying that socialism is not possible but I do think the weight of history speaks against it. Its successes are fleeting and ephemeral.

You can interpret the attempts to implement socialism as evidence of the possiblity of socialism. You can interpret the failure of these attempts as evidence of the impossibility of socialism. Either way it's not science.


The closest thing to a socialist revoultion in my opinion was the Spanish Revolution of 1936. The working class actually sezied the means of production.

Again, this is an interesting thought. But socialism did not result from the Spanish revolution.


To propose that things got worse after the Russian revolution is absurd. Would you rather live under fuedalism and starve or a bolshevik state that actually brought the country into the modern era?

I think you misunderstood my point or maybe I didn't express it clearly. I did not mean that Bolshevism was worse than the Tzarist autocracy. I meant the state did not wither away but instead became more and more powerful.


It's a forum for debate, what else would you expect people to be doing?
How exactly is questioning religion disrespectful? Tell me why should we care if it is?

You are an intelligent person. What is the point of setting up a poll about whether or not God exists? Its only function is to give a few smug idiots the chance to ridicule religion. They prattle on about the 'scientific method' without knowing what it is.

Questioning religion is not disrespectful but ridiculing it is profoundly insulting to many people. If you are serious about making a revolution you will have to gain the support of very many religious working class people around the world. The attitudes expressed on this board will only alienate people.

[jasmine]

The peasantry did not abolish feudalism. The slaves did not abolish slave society. Why should the working class abolish capitalism? There are leaders and lead and the lead do not run the world. Remember the 1980's miners' strike. A victory was well within the grasp of the working class but Thatcher won. Why?