Log in

View Full Version : hierarchy - A neccessary pre communist form



peaccenicked
25th March 2002, 10:12
taken from
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works.../1879/09/17.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/17.htm)
"First, such people, in order to be useful to the proletarian movement, must bring with them really educated elements. This, however, is not the case with the great majority of German bourgeois converts. Neither the Zukunft [fortnightly Berlin magazine] nor the Neue Gesellschaft [monthly Zurich periodical] has provided anything to advance the movement one step. They are completely deficient in real, factual, or theoretical material. Instead, there are efforts to bring superficial socialist ideas into harmony with the various theoretical viewpoints which the gentlemen from the universities, or from wherever, bring with them, and among whom one is more confused than the other, thanks to the process of decomposition in which German philosophy finds itself today. Instead of first studying the new science [scientific socialism] thoroughly, everyone relies rather on the viewpoint he brought with him, makes a short cut toward it with his own private science, and immediately steps forth with pretensions of wanting to teach it. Hence, there are among those gentlemen as many viewpoints as there are heads; instead of clarifying anything, they only produce arrant confusion — fortunately, almost always only among themselves. Such educated elements, whose guiding principle is to teach what they have not learned, the party can well dispense with.

Second, when such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. In so petty-bourgeois a country as Germany, such conceptions certainly have their justification, but only outside the Social-Democratic Labor party. If the gentlemen want to build a social-democratic petty-bourgeois party, they have a full right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, conclude agreements, etc., according to circumstances. But in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitates tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time."

El Che
27th March 2002, 03:49
How does this relate to the hierachy of a pre-Comunist Socialist state? If I am not mistaken Marx[?] is refering to the composition and sensibilities of a social democratic party within a capitalist nation.

peaccenicked
28th March 2002, 09:44
Capitalism is precomunist,
The transitional phase is a transition from capitalism,
It does not disappear but leaves its mark on the new society. I am pointing to vanguardism in Marx.

El Che
28th March 2002, 19:35
I`m sorry but I see no defense of vanguardism there. He is only separating the waters.

peaccenicked
29th March 2002, 12:15
I am attributting concept of political leadership to
Marx. Therefore a concept of the 'led'. Therefore by
the inane standards of anarchists,I am saying the charge of 'elitism' extends to Marx.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:30 pm on Mar. 29, 2002)

Rosa
29th March 2002, 12:27
agree with you, anarhism among people with different ethical concepts can only lead to horrible war. anarhism requests ethicaly educated and well raised members of the society.
That means: anarhism - yes, but when change is made, and that action should be led by someone.

TheDerminator
29th March 2002, 14:05
Rosa,
Excellent post!

El Che,

"Second, when such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint."
This relates directly to inner party democracy and to democratic centralism. If "fellow-travellers" do not unite behind socialist leadership acting in the interests of the working class, then these people are part of the problem.
"They are completely deficient in real, factual, or theoretical material...Hence, there are among those gentlemen as many viewpoints as there are heads; instead of clarifying anything, they only produce arrant confusion — fortunately, almost always only among themselves. Such educated elements, whose guiding principle is to teach what they have not learned, the party can well dispense with."
Marx would not tolerate such eclectics in the socialist movement, and thus we can see that he would think the exact same of those coming from an anarchist position, because they share the theoretical deficiency. Marx would have dispensed with their contributions within a socialist party.
As for a Pre-Communist Socialist State. When did that become the issue Rosa was raising. The issue is just an issue of the extension of participatory democracy within a socialist society. U are confusing the two issues.
"But in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitates tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time."
U can be sure Marx would have seen no contradiction, nor no confusion.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

RedRevolutionary87
29th March 2002, 16:07
ok communism needs to be lead simply because it needs to be global, and its a change in a hostile environment. while anarchy, which should come after communism and not any time before, only when people have reached that level of consienceness needed to maintain just anarchy, must not be lead, it must be a natural proccess, because only then will it come at the right time

Valkyrie
5th April 2002, 02:24
Really? I don't think there needs to be some mass conscious enlightenment. I think anarchism actually would enable if not force people to deal with eachother in a more ethically responsible way, which they don't do now. They would have to - because the government would not be there to fall back on. In all probability, society then would evolve to a much greater degree because of it. Right now, there's a general depraved indifference and huge apathy in the way people treat eachother because the responsibility for man's welfare has been taken away from them and passed onto the government making it allowable for people to shirk the load.

Likewise one will not become a criminal if they are not inclined to be so in the first place. Even now the current laws and police forces are not much of a deterrent if one is bent on committing crime. And most people do not commit crime.

Not Utopian, just true.





(Edited by Paris at 3:53 am on April 5, 2002)

Valkyrie
5th April 2002, 02:32
Also, Just to point out -- the main culprits behind wars,, now and in the past--- are the governments.

libereco
6th April 2002, 00:35
I love it how the followers and leaders always pretend that to achieve anything you have to be led.

Reminds me of fascism, they reason the exact same way.

I don't really see what Marx's quote has to do with this though...

I hardly have any time to post at the moment, but stuff like this is truely sickening.

peaccenicked
6th April 2002, 22:25
train drivers dont like being criticised on route.
The point of democray is to set up the parameters between the leaders and the led. If a Trade union always had a vote then instant walkouts would not take place. If the shop steward takes an initiative he can always answer to the workers later.

honest intellectual
6th April 2002, 23:17
A classless society follows the modern two-class society which followed the fuedal caste-system. In this sense, communism is a development of hierarchical society and thus hierarchy is a neccesary precondition to communism